Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unfit Housing

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to tackle the problems of unfit houses in the south Wales valleys.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Since 1979, more than 61,000 homes in the valleys area have been improved at a cost of over £152 million. Over the three years of the programme for the valleys, we expect, on average, to see the renovation of some 10,700 valley homes per year. The last Labour Government were unable to match that average rate for the whole of the Principality during their last term in office.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that in the Rhondda alone, 5,000 people are on the waiting list for improvement grants and that it is estimated that 18,000 houses in the valleys need improvement grants, at a total cost of about £200 million? It is not the juggling of money, but new resources for valley communities that we require. Does the Minister accept that the con-trick of the Secretary of State—the valleys initiative—is no more acceptable in the Rhondda than it was to the electors of Pontrypridd or the Vale of Glamorgan?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman's question is extraordinary. Clearly, he did not listen to my reply. He has not understood that 10,000 new homes will be built under the initiative, that it has been welcomed by all local authorities, industrialists and trade unionists, and that other people have rightly given it a firm welcome as bringing a new spotlight to Wales, which the hon. Gentleman seems to be willing to deny.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one is going to make progress with unfit houses in the valleys of Wales, one needs a policy for housing—an advantage not shared by the Labour party? What progress does my hon. Friend expect housing associations to make in dealing with unfit houses in Wales?

Mr. Grist: The progress will be considerable. Under the programme for the valleys, about £8·6 million of special funding will be made available through Housing for Wales for approved development programmes in that area.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: What provisions does the Minister intend to make for those who have already applied for

improvement grants? Will he ensure that such people will be catered for, in addition to new people coming on to the scheme from 1 April 1990?

Mr. Grist: I am assured by the councils concerned that if applications have been approved, they will be able to tit them in before the new scheme comes into play.

Mr. Murphy: Why cannot the Minister accept that all responsible housing associations and similar bodies in Wales are saying that his means-tested improvement grants will mean that fewer people will take up the grants and that our housing stock is bound to suffer? Cannot he see that our south Wales valleys will reject this policy in the same way as they rejected the rest of the Government's policies in the county council elections last week?

Mr. Grist: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be careful in what he says on this matter. I hope that he will tell his constituents—as I hope that his hon. Friends will—that the scheme produced under our new legislation will be the most generous ever, giving grants of up to 100 per cent. —which have never been available before—to those least able to pay. That will mean that about 54,500 houses in Wales will be eligible for 100 per cent. grants.

Sheepmeat Regime

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy towards any measures arising from the current review of the sheepmeat regime which could disadvantage Welsh producers.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): 1 welcome the initiative to create a unified Community sheepmeat market, which offers the prospect of better access to continental markets However, we will continue to resist changes that would discriminate against producers in Wales and will seek to secure arrangements that will allow free and fair competition, provide support at reasonable cost and thus enable the industry in Wales to benefit from its natural production advantages and its efficiency.

Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that the 1988 agreement on sheepmeat stabilisers and the ewe premium was the result of short-term political expediency and was not in the long-term interests of either sheep producers or consumers in Wales? Will the Secretary of State now say to the people of Wales that he will use his good offices to ensure that the sheep sector in Wales is not damaged as the final result of the agreement on the sheep regime?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those views on the future of the sheepmeat regime are shared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have no doubt that we shall reach an agreement that will secure the continuation of sheep farming on the hills of Wales on a proper viable basis.

Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Minister see Commissioner MacSharry on BBC Wales yesterday? The Commissioner made it quite clear that the variable premium would have to be phased out by 1992. Does the Minister accept that if that happens, it will be a hammer blow to the small family farms which form the basis of the economic and social life


of much of upland Wales? If he accepts that those will be the consequences of the loss of the variable premium, will he press in Cabinet for the adoption of the measures that are available to the United Kingdom Government under the structures programme to assist by some means of direct compensation?

Mr. Walker: Whatever Mr. MacSharry said, I remember the immense hostility expressed by the Opposition when, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I introduced the variable premium scheme. I am glad that they have at last paid tribute to that scheme. Having introduced that scheme, I wish to ensure that if there are to be changes in it, it continues to secure the viability of sheep farming in Wales.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wyn Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of people in full-time employment in Wales in June 1979; and what are the present figures.

Mr. Peter Walker: The information is not available in the form requested.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not feel able to give us that information. The figures that I have secured from the Library show that more than 100,000 fewer full-time jobs exist in Wales than existed in 1979. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is because of that poor record on creating jobs that the electors of Pontypridd and the Vale of Glamorgan turned their backs on, and voted so resoundingly against, his vice-regal progress?

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures are not available. He asked for the full-time employment figures, and there are no separate figures available for full-time male employment in Wales. That is why I could not meet his request, although I am delighted to answer the question. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such remarks about a Government under whom unemployment has fallen by 54,000 in the past two years and, given that inward investment is at an all-time high, I can understand the Opposition's discomfort at our success.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my right hon. Friend give figures to show the improvement in the strength of the work force during the past two years?

Mr. Walker: The civilian work force has increased by 35,000, with a substantial increase both in the numbers attending places of higher education and in those on Government training programmes. Moreover the number of self-employed people is now rising sharply.

Mr. Foot: If the comparative figures for people in full-time employment are available for England—as they are—why are similar figures not available for Wales?

Mr. Walker: The figures for those in employment, as opposed to the unemployed, are given in a survey that does not give separate figures for part-time and for full-time employment.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that Wales is holding its share of inward investment, as compared with other parts of the United

Kingdom? Will he give us the latest figures for the number of jobs created by overseas companies that have set up in the Principality?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Wales's share of inward investment in the United Kingdom, in terms of related new jobs, was 20 per cent. in 1987. I am pleased to say that we have just received the provisional figures for 1988, which show that our share has increased to 22 per cent. of all inward investment in the United Kingdom. That compares with 6 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not the case that Wales now has 10 per cent. fewer jobs than in 1979, while East Anglia has enjoyed a 25 per cent. increase, and that economic growth and industrial investment in Wales has grown by only 1.4 per cent. per annum since 1979—only half the growth rate in the prosperous south-east of England? That does not amount to the economic miracle proclaimed by the Secretary of State. How does the Cabinet Minister, with supreme trumpeting skills, explain the Labour party's magnificent victories in the Vale of Glamorgan and in the county of Clwyd? Is the right hon. Gentleman to blame, or is it the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the NHS White Paper or the privatisation of water? I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in yesterday's Sunday Times to the effect that NHS issues were a factor. But, on St. David's day, he openly boasted in the House that, in Cabinet Committee, he himself helped to fashion the NHS's approach.

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that these questions are about employment.

Mr. Walker: Rumour has it that the Vale of Glamorgan result was totally due to the enormous impact which the hon. Gentleman made on the campaign. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Gentleman that the fall in the Conservative vote in the 1986 Fulham by-election was rather larger than the fall in vote in the Vale of Glamorgan. We still won back the Fulham constituency by a large majority at the next general election.

Mr. Soames: When it comes to trumpeting, will my right hon. Friend take up a suggestion which may help employment in Wales? Is he aware that this is the first time for many hundreds of years that there is no full-time regular battalion of soldiers stationed in Wales? Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and make sure that the military are properly represented in Wales, as they always have been and should be?

Mr. Walker: Yes. My right hon. Friend is taking this matter fully into consideration. I hope that he will be able to make some proposals.

Wales Tourist Board

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is undertaking, or plans to undertake, any review of the work of the Wales tourist board, analogous to the review of the tourist industry currently being undertaken in England; whether he has received any representations concerning the future structure, responsibilities and powers of the Wales tourist board; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I have no such plans. However, a number of interested bodies and individuals have made representations about the review in England and its possible implications for Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister recall that, last June, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a development strategy for tourism in Wales on the basis of considerable investment over a five-year period, based on section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969? Is he aware also that, from March of this year, there has been considerable agreement between local authorities in Wales and the Wales tourist board on investment of over £8 million for the Wales tourist board, to trigger a total investment of £73 million over the coming five years? Given that, will he give an assurance that the basis of that investment—section 4 of the Act—will definitely remain for the future?

Mr. Roberts: Of course. That is one of the reasons why the review was confined to England. As the hon. Gentleman said, a five-year development strategy has been evolved by the Wales tourist board, and it is expected that it will trigger off about £73 million of private sector money and create 2,000 jobs. Therefore, there is every reason for us to continue as we are.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 9 March 1979, the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 5,697, 17,480 and 107,696, respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if he blows that trumpet much louder, we shall all suffer from industrial deafness? Is not the reality just a little different, considering that over the past decade, there has been a fall in investment of 2·7 per cent., compared with a 22·6 per cent. increase in the south-east of England, that our regional aid has been cut from £209 million to £104 million, and that our growth rate was only 1·4 per cent. over the decade, compared with double that in the south-east of England? Is it not time that we had a bit of modesty from the Government spokesman?

Mr. Walker: When it comes to modesty about Wales, there is nobody better than the hon. Gentleman. He plays down the place the entire time. I am delighted, in spite of playing a different tune, that as a result of what is happening at the moment, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has dropped by 40 per cent. in the past two years. Inward investment has been at a record high. I shall continue trumpeting around the world to improve the situation still further.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State explain why unemployed people in my constituency received a document through their letter boxes this morning entitled:
Your guide to the community charge"?

Why did it arrive this morning, and not last Monday morning before the county council elections? Was it an unacceptable election manifesto for Conservatives at county council elections?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry about any depression that the hon. Gentleman may have as a result of the county council elections. I recognise that in parliamentary and county council elections his party is having a pretty rough time at present. I am sure that that distribution was arranged by an office, but I do not know whether it is bringing good news or bad news, because I have not read the leaflet.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the problems of one group of workers and staff who are facing redundancy—the disabled people in Remploy factories in south Wales? Is he aware of the proposal that a number of staff who have been made technically redundant will have to reapply for their jobs? I remind him that we are talking about disabled people. If the Secretary of State has not heard about that proposal, will he call for a report and ensure that a bit of compassion is shown towards those employed in Remploy factories.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall certainly look into that. My last association with a Remploy factory was to open a new one, which meant a major extension for Remploy's activities. If there is a problem, I shall look into it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend recall the winter of discontent in 1979 and its effect on jobs in Wales? What does he think will be the effect on inward investment prospects in Wales if the policy of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of scrapping the Conservative Government's industrial relations legislation and allowing secondary picketing were to become law?

Mr. Walker: Wales, which has 5 per cent. of the population, currently gets 22 per cent. of all inward investment, which is a remarkable record and one which will not be helped or assisted in any way by the suggestion that what Wales wants to do is to return to nationalisation and to control by the trade unions.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Thatcherite single economic dogma has left significant weaknesses in the Welsh economy? I refer, for example, to the utter failure of the Government's training measures as instanced by the CBI in Wales, and to the fact that unemployment stands 45,000 higher than it did in 1979? Was not Lord Crickhowell correct in stating that there are no new policies, no new initiatives and little change in the scale of public spending?

Mr. Walker: We currently have record investment in the valleys by a long way and we are spending £1 million per week on training programmes in the valleys. Expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency is 50 per cent. above what it was two years ago. I am glad that as a result of all that and of the higher production and the fall in unemployment, Wales is the most successful region in the United Kingdom.

Patient Statistics

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were


treated in National Health Service hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1979.

Mr. Grist: In 1987, 448,716 in-patients were treated and 516,861 new out-patients were seen in NHS hospitals in Wales. Comparable figures for 1979 were 349,695 in-patients and 428,739 out-patients. Those figures represent increases of 28 per cent. and 21 per cent., respectively, since 1979.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, above all others, show the improvement in the National Health Service since 1979?

Mr. Grist: They certainly do, and they show the strain under which the Health Service is placed by an increase in demand and its success in meeting that demand. It is worth noting that during the period of the last Labour Government, in-patient cases increased by only 6 per cent. as opposed to 28 per cent. under this Government and that the number of new out-patients fell by 3 per cent. as opposed to rising by 20 per cent. under this Government.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Under-Secretry of State look at the out-patient figures because there is a crisis in the dermatology service in south Wales? In my constituency it now takes up to two years to get an appointment to see a consultant dermatologist. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the figures again and provide some more money to ensure that dermatology does not remain the Cinderella service of the Health Service?

Mr. Grist: I am not sure about it being a Cinderella service, but we are certainly aware of the shortages in that area and are addressing them urgently.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that that dramatic increase in the number of patients treated in Wales has been made possible by the massive increase in Government spending in Wales on the NHS, which has increased from£11 per week for every household in Wales in 1978–79 to £36 per week for every household in Wales in 1989–90? Does he also agree that the NHS White Paper proposals, such as the appointment of more consultants and giving GPs their choice of hospitals, will ensure that that trend continues and that more patients are treated more quickly in the future?

Mr. Grist: That is our precise intention—to give patients the choice, to give doctors the ability to offer the choice to their patients, and to provide the spur to the hospital services to make sure that choice is a reality. It is worth noting that under this Government the number of consultants has increased by 22·5 per cent., the number of registrars by more than 11 per cent., and the number of those directly concerned with patient care by more than 17 per cent. That is this Government's record.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What advice does the Minister offer my constituent who is 83 years old and needs an eye operation? That gentleman has had severely deteriorating eyesight for many years, and now he cannot read a newspaper or watch television. His quality of life is being severely jeopardised. All he needs is an operation to remove scar tissue from the eye and a slight cataract for which he has been told by his consultant he will have to wait seven months. He is 83 years old, and there is a seven-month waiting list for what is really a minor

operation. The same consultant told him that, if he had it done privately, he could do the operation for him straight away at a cost of about £1,000.

Mr. Grist: I cannot give individual advice on such a case. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with details, we will look into the matter. It is worth noting that under our proposals the general practitioner of the hon. Gentleman's constituent would be able to look around for other waiting lists that very often would be a great deal shorter, but about which at present he may be entirely ignorant. The hon. Gentleman describes precisely the sort of situation that we wish to bring to an end.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Are not the very creditable increases in the number of patients being treated the real measure of the Government's commitment to continuing the expansion and improvement of the Health Service? Does my hon. Friend agree that that refutes the spurious claims about bed numbers? Because of the deployment of resources, under-utilised beds can reduce the number of people being treated.

Mr. Grist: Certainly the enormous rise in day cases under this Government, which is a part of modern medicine, has made a tremendous change in the use of beds. As I know myself, people can go in and out of hospital under modern medication at a speed that was almost undreamed of when most of us were young.

Mr. Michael: Rather than repeat statistics that he must know are misleading, will the Minister recognise that the health record of the Government, of which the Secretary of State has been a Member for 10 years, and their future health policies, which have been drawn up by a Cabinet Committee of which the Secretary of State was a member, were wholeheartedly rejected by the voters of the Vale of Glamorgan? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, exclude Wales from the proposals set out in the Health Service White Paper?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave misleading statistics. I believe that they will find, when the general election comes, that they have been rumbled. When we have a population with increasing health benefits, with more centenarians, with people living longer, better and more healthily, with more people being innoculated and vaccinated, and with people keeping their teeth longer, it staggers me that any hon. Member could say that the Health Service is failing under this Government.

Single Market

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparations are being made by his Department for the introduction of the single European market on 1 January 1993.

Mr. Peter Walker: My Department is actively engaged in a vigorous campaign to encourage Welsh businesses to prepare for the single European market. It provides information and expert advice on the key issues, and access to a wide variety of practical assistance, including the consultancies available under Enterprise Wales.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important decisions concerning 1992 are now being taken in Wales? What is the latest figure for inward


investment and what effect does my right hon. Friend expect that to have on exporting prospects for Wales in 1993?

Mr. Walker: I agree that action is needed now. I am pleased to say that throughout the Principality a whole range of decisions is being taken by commercial concerns. Inward investment is transforming the Welsh economy as an exporting country. In fact, the five biggest inward investments of the past few years, when completed, will produce about £1 billion of exports per year.

Dr. Thomas: Would the Secretary of State care to explain how the attitude of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Lingua programme is helpful to Welsh prisoners as they approach 1992?

Mr. Walker: That is of no basic disadvantage; nor will it affect them.

Regional Development

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has for changes to his regional development policy particularly in relation to Swansea and south-west Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am always looking to ensure that the Government's various mechanisms to sustain and stimulate development are effectively deployed. Over the past year unemployment in the Swansea and Llanelli travel-to-work area has fallen by nearly 3,800. I welcome the development of the Swansea bay partnership and the exciting link announced 10 days ago between British Urban Development and Swansea city council.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State examine the reasons why there is no significant Japanese investment in the area covered by the Swansea bay partnership and why we cannot attract Toyota? Would not he conclude that it is related to the removal of our regional development status and a failure to give adequate infrastructural investment to the area, by which I mean adequate access to the Channel tunnel and the quick completion of the Baglan-Lonlas motorway?

Mr. Walker: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He gave Toyota as an example, but he will know that because of European Commission regulations on Toyota no country in Europe could give regional aid. Our offer to Toyota—the same one as was made in Derby—was devoid of regional assistance because of that. By Commission agreement, the motor industry is not subject to regional aid. General developments to improve the infrastructure in Swansea are on a considerable scale. I do not believe that the enormous potential investment that was announced 10 days ago would have been announced unless that were the case.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are much more likely to secure jobs and prosperity in Wales by encouraging private sector investment than by trying to recreate the museum of industrial archaeology which would have been maintained had the Labour party been in power these past 10 years? May I say to my right hon. Friend that his trumpet is in every respect far preferable to the Opposition's tin whistle?

Mr. Walker: Enormous diversification is taking place, for example the enormous growth in financial services in Swansea, Cardiff and elsewhere, and the great diversity in new manufacturing. The fall in unemployment in the past two years has been on a scale which will produce a Wales which enjoys full employment in a diversified, free enterprise economy for the first time.

Hon. Members: When?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise that the decision in 1979 by the Government, of whom he was a member, to remove special development area status from south-west Wales has had a damaging effect? We needed that status and assistance to compensate us for being further from the markets. If he is genuinely interested in regional development will he try to get it restored?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman, who has understandably raised his considerable anxiety at the closure of the Austin-Rover plant, will be pleased with the developments that have taken place since as a result of our flexible methods of assistance through the Welsh Development Agency. The saving of a considerable number of jobs and a whole range of other investments are taking place in his constituency.

Aluminium (Water Supplies)

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a detailed record of the aluminium levels in domestic water supplied in mid and south Glamorgan by the Welsh water authority in 1988–89.

Mr. Grist: This is a matter for the Welsh water authority and the information is not held by my Department.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that a great many of my constituents are extremely worried about the high levels of aluminium being recorded in domestic water supplies from Welsh Water? Will he agree that the people of Wales pay a high enough price for water without having to worry about ill health? If he agrees, will he have a word with his noble Friend Lord Crickhowell about putting matters right?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and his constituents can at least be comforted by the fact that the Welsh water authority's programmes have improvements in hand which will remove the aluminium by 1992 at the latest. Although it has been concluded that there is a link between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium—I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point—it has not yet been proven and further studies are being undertaken. There is no absolute proof.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister explain why it is that when improvements are sought in the quality of water supply, the Welsh water authority says that money is limited for capital expenditure, yet when politics and its relationship with the Government demand, it is able to find £2 million, this year alone, for advertising its corporate existence? There never seems to be a shortage of money then.

Mr. Grist: It is worth pointing out that the Welsh water authority has 35 remedial work schemes, which are estimated to cost £96·7 million, which makes the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned look small beer.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh water industry will be able to increase its capital expenditure once it is able to tap the private market for funds?

Mr. Grist: Absolutely, and with a flexibility and capacity to think in the long term which a state enterprise does not have because it has to answer to the Exchequer's needs in running the total economy.

Rural Schools

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain small schools in rural areas.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is for local education authorities to determine how to preserve and enhance the quality of education in rural areas. The Government have given help through education support grant to improve the quality and range of the curriculum provided in rural schools. The measures included in the Education Reform Act 1988 are intended to improve the quality of education in all schools, including small rural ones and my right hon. Friend will be monitoring the effects of its implementation.

Mr. Jones: In view of his reply will the Minister ensure that the Fron school in my constituency remains open? If it does not, many very young children will be travelling up and down the A5, which, as he knows, is a dangerous and busy road. I know that this matter is the responsibility of Clwyd county council, but it needs the funds.

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the case of Froncyslyllte school, which has 16 pupils and five primary pupils. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it is a matter for Clwyd local education authority. No proposal is as yet before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Sir Anthony Meyer: We all agree on the importance of small rural schools, particularly for social reasons. Does my hon. Friend share my satisfaction that Clwyd county council will now have to choose between having its cake and eating it?

Mr. Roberts: I am not exactly sure of the implications of the fact that, as I understand it, the Labour party now has a majority of one on Clwyd county council. However, that position carries with it an obligation for Labour members to chair all the committees, which, hitherto, the Labour party has avoided doing.

Health Authority Chairmen

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen of health authorities in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend and I met the Welsh health authorities' chairmen's committee on 30 November 1988. The main subjects discussed were the NHS review; resource allocations for 1989–90; manpower issues; and obstacles to efficient management. We are to meet it again on 15 May for a full discussion of the NHS review White Paper "Working for Patients".

Mr. Michael: Does not the Minister consider the topic of 10-year hospital plans of sufficient importance to warrant a special meeting with individual chairmen? Now that he has had more than seven months to consider the South Glamorgan health authority's plan and the Vale of Glamorgan by-election is out of the way, will he reject the plan as it stands, and also the ill-judged closures in it?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman was one of two Members of Parliament who made representations about the South Glamorgan plan and we know where he stands. As he says, the plan is before the Department and I cannot comment on it, but we have taken careful note of the representations that he made.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give the House the figures for hospital waiting lists in 1979 and the latest available figures? Will he give an estimate of how much the figures have been massaged in the Government's favour by the removal of day cases and self-deferred cases during this Government's period in office? Will he remember the promise that he made two years ago that one year ago no person waiting for in-patient treatment in Wales would have to wait more than a month? The waiting list is appalling and has, if anything, become worse. When will he tell the health authority chairmen that the Government are going to carry out that promise?

Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he will have to wait one more week until the latest statistics are published. However, the general point should be made that the more successful a service is, the bigger its waiting list seems to become, because more people are referred. It is clear that when a new service becomes available more and more people pile in on it and are referred to it by their general practitioners. Twenty years ago there was no waiting list for hip operations; now, an unprecedented number of people are having them.

Dock Workers

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered dock workers there are in the ports of south Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: There are 587 dock workers registered in the five south Wales ports covered by the scheme.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that however few registered dock workers are left in the ports of south Wales, there will be even fewer if there is a dock strike in the next few weeks? Does he agree that, as a Bristol Member, I am the perfect disinterested party to ask this question, since if there is trouble in the south Wales ports it will inevitably redound to the benefit of Bristol?

Mr. Roberts: I agree that there is really no reason for a strike, and if there is one, it can result only in a further loss of jobs. It would help us all—dockers and the House—if the Opposition declared their attitude to a strike unequivocally. Are they for a strike or against it?
The ports in the scheme in Wales have suffered a reduction in the number of jobs over the years and a decline in trade, whereas the non-scheme port of Neath has experienced an increase of about 60 per cent. in the tonnage that passes through it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Civil Procedures (Reform)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the White Paper on the reform of civil procedure and progress made to date by the working party on multi-party actions and legal aid and their effects upon work-related personal injury claims.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The civil justice review, to which the Government gave their response on 6 April 1989, proposes a radical reallocation of business between the High Court and the county court. In addition, the Legal Aid Board has been conducting a detailed study of the opportunity for, and funding of, multi-party actions. It is expected to publish its preliminary conclusions and to go out to general consultation in the very near future.

Mr. Allen: Neither the White Paper nor the working group seems to address the difficult problem of personal injury claims. It is difficult to pursue such claims even when, as often happens, they are legitimate. Will the Minister consider extending the strict liability rule and examine the burden of proof so that legitimate claims can be pursued more effectively?

The Solicitor-General: On the contrary, the civil justice review devotes a great deal of its attention to personal injury claims and brings forward some far-reaching proposals for speeding up justice in this area and for making it less expensive.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): About 3·3 million cases have been handled by the service since it began. The commitment and professionalism of the staff throughout this early period have impressed me greatly. Understaffing of lawyers in some areas has, from the outset, been a serious handicap. It has imposed heavy burdens on those in post. but staffing levels are now improving following last year's improvements in pay. Independent acknowledgement of growing strength in the performance of the new service has recently come from the chairman of the Magistrates Association, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police. This I believe to be well deserved, and it is most welcome.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the salary structure is now adequate to attract candidates of the right calibre?

The Attorney-General: There has certainly been an improvement in recruiting following the increases in pay to which I have just referred. I have, of course, always to remember the need for a satisfactory career structure, and the fact that there is an overall shortage of lawyers nationwide.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that in the recent case concerning the Wapping police officers and those who have now been discharged by the

Bow street magistrates, the papers were delivered by the police complaints bureau in May and a decision on prosecution was not taken until December? Could that in part have been due to the fact that the inner London staffing of the Crown prosecution service is still lamentably low?

The Attorney-General: All that it would be right for me to say about a detailed case, following a reply to an open question about the Crown prosecution service, is that in the instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, matters are more complex than may have been conveyed by press reports.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Bar Council's response to the Green Paper, particularly as it refers to the Crown prosecution service, has been most constructive? Will he confirm that the cost to the Crown prosecution service of instructing solicitors is exactly double the cost to the service of instructing people from the independent Bar?

The Attorney-General: It is certainly true that solicitors' overheads, being higher than those of barristers, have led to a substantial increase in the amount that is paid to solicitors who act as agents for the Crown prosecution service. I am glad to endorse what my hon. and learned Friend says about the quality of the Bar's response to the Green Paper.

Mr. Nellist: Given the increasing number of homeless young people prosecuted in London under the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the fact that the Crown prosecution service appears to prosecute without question, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what purpose is being served? Why are the Crown prosecution service and the police apparently conducting special nightly sweeps of young people and putting them in court the next morning? In view of what has been said about the understaffing of the Crown prosecution service, is not this a wasteful and vindictive use of public resources?

The Attorney-General: No case is prosecuted by the Crown prosecution service without question, to adopt the hon. Gentleman's phraseology. Nor is any sweep carried out by the service in London or anywhere else. The Crown prosecution service is bound by the guidelines established for the conduct of prosecutions, which have statutory authority. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject and I read the report today in The Guardian.

Mr. Favell: While the Crown prosecution service has had teething problems, is not the service now dealing well with the new time limits for remand cases in the experimental areas set by the Home Secretary, and has not that released a large number of policemen back on to the beat?

The Attorney-General: That is absolutely true. When the matter was brought forward by the Royal Commission, about 600 police officers were estimated to have been released from court work. I have no evidence to suggest that that is not the case and that the police are not back where the public want to see them—on the beat. A s for timings, it is an important change that cases must now reach the court within a certain time after committal, and that is being well met by the Crown prosecution service.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General take the House into his confidence about the state of morale of the CPS? Is not the pay of those in the Government legal service in a complete mess and are not the comparabilities providing difficulties between one part of the service and another? How many have joined the CPS this year, having resigned as magistrates' clerks, leading to substantial difficulties, including the cancellation of some courts?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to give detailed answers to all those questions, but I will look into the matters he raises and write to him about them. Those who serve the Crown prosecution service—after a wide programme of visits since the service began—are deeply committed to its work. Of course they would like to see recruiting up to full establishment, and there has never been any doubt that there is a shortfall; I have mentioned that today. I believe that pay is competitive now, but it must be kept carefully under review.

Advice (Confidentiality)

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to preserve the confidentiality of his advice to Ministers and others.

The Attorney-General: The rule is so well known and observed that I find no such steps are necessary.

Mr. Winnick: I notice that the Attorney-General smiles. Given the remarks of Sir Leon Brittan, is it not now clear that there would have been no leak of the letter which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote as Solicitor-General had not "express approval"—I am using the recent words of Sir Leon Brittan—been given by the Prime Minister's chief press secretary and political secretary? In view of the Attorney-General's reply to my main question, did not he feel very much let down by the way in which the No. 10 Downing street staff behaved? How can he be reassured tht such behaviour will not occur again?

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was sandbagged.

The Attorney-General: It would need rather a large sandbag.

Mr. Banks: Handbagged, then.

The Attorney-General: It would need an even larger handbag.
This is well ploughed ground and I have no intention of adding to its now very distant yield.

Gloucester United Schools Charity

Mr. French: To ask the Attorney-General if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his investigation of the affairs of the Gloucester United Schools charity.

The Solicitor-General: The investigation of the affairs of the Gloucester United Schools charity, which has been conducted with the assistance of counsel for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for Gloucester county council, is well advanced. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to reach a conclusion in the fairly near future.

Mr. French: I note my hon. and learned Friend's statement, but will he accept that it is now more than six months since the Treasury Solicitor first instituted his part of the inquiry and more than 15 years since the county council first failed to account correctly for its stewardship of the assets of the charity? Does he not feel that the beneficiaries have been patient for long enough?

The Solicitor-General: A careful examination of a period of 15 years is well advanced after six months. That is not bad going. I hope to be able to assist my hon. Friend more fully in the fairly near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Crown Agents

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the Crown Agents to be privatised.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): As I informed the House on 14 December 1988, Her Majesty's Government have no immediate plans to privatise the Crown Agents.

Mr. Field: Given the great success that the Crown Agents have in arranging training for overseas personnel in various skills such as public administration and legal work, and the fact that the Government have returned an enormous number of training functions to the private sector, is it not time that the Crown Agents were privatised so that the training of overseas students can be performed by the private sector and the functions even expanded?

Mr. Patten: As I made clear last December, our legislative ambitions have to be reconciled with pressures on the legislative timetable. We have now completed the restructuring of the Crown Agents, to which I referred last December, and I have every confidence in their ability to discharge their functions effectively. I am delighted that they have won an extremely important contract from the Japanese aid programme to help with the procurement of Japanese aid in Africa.

Mr. Gow: Knowing my hon. Friend's zeal for the privatisation programme, what injury would be done to those who are now receiving service from the Crown Agents if the Crown Agents were to be privatised?

Mr. Patten: I am ready to concede straight away that my hon. Friend is an expert on my zeal. He is right to refer to my zeal in relation to the Government's privatisation programme. I can assure him that no damage would be done to the excellent work that is done by the Crown Agents were they to be privatised. However, privatisation needs legislation and legislation needs time.

Rural Health Care, India

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he is making to the development of rural health care in India.

Mr. Chris Patten: I recently approved an allocation of £20 million for phase II of the family welfare project in the state of Orissa. This project is directed towards the health care of mothers and children with special emphasis on poor tribal groups in rural areas. It complements our


village health care programme in Gujarat and long-standing support for national programmes on leprosy, malaria, blindness, cancer and nutrition.

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply, but will he assure the House that wherever possible health care programmes and direct attacks on poverty are integrated properly with education? Without education the other two factors are superfluous.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We try to integrate our health programme in India and elsewhere with other programmes. We are trying to do that with our major education programme in Andrha Pradesh, for example, and to integrate also health care with our slum improvement programmes in Hyderabad, Visak, and elsewhere.

Ethiopia (Somalian Refugees)

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid given by Her Majesty's Government to Somalian refugees in Ethiopia.

Mr. Chris Patten: Since the outbreak of the civil conflict in Somalia last year, we have provided assistance totalling some £2·45 million for Somali refugees in Ethiopia. We provided a further £2·73 million in support of programmes run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the benefit both of Sudanese and Somali refugees in Ethiopia.

Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the level of malnutrition that exists in many refugee camps in Ethiopia. In Hartisheik refugee camp, for example, more than 30 per cent. of children aged under five are defined as malnourished. Will he outline his plans to provide water and food to the camps before malnutrition and disease break out, rather than after?

Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Lady will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not think that the immediate problem is lack of resources in the camps in the Ogaden. When I visited those camps a few months ago, they had a considerable number of organisational problems that I took up with Mr. Hocké the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, when I returned to London. Considerable problems still exist there. Many have been brought to our attention by non-governmental organisations to whom I spoke a couple of weeks ago, and I shall be bringing them to Mr. Hocke's attention when he visits London later this month.

Mr. Baldry: Given that there are Somalian refugees in Ethiopia, Ethiopian refugees in the Sudan, and Sudanese refugees elsewhere in the Horn of Africa, is not the root cause of so many difficulties the eternal strife and civil disturbances within those countries? When will the international community as a whole get a grip on the Horn of Africa and start helping those countries resolve some of their internal difficulties? Otherwise, there will be an endless saga of malnutrition and starvation.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that the major cause of distress in the Horn of Africa is civil conflict in the countries he mentioned. I fear that our ability to provide humanitarian relief to those in need is greater than our ability to make that humanitarian relief

unnecessary in the first place. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We make a good deal of effort ourselves—bilaterally, through the Community, and through other channels—to bring about peace in that region.

Nicaragua

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988, expressed as a per capita sum of the population of Nicaragua.

Mr. Chris Patten: The level of aid given to Nicaragua by Her Majesty's Government in 1988 through the European Community, disaster relief and other channels was around £1·05 per capita.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister did not mention bilateral aid. Will he bear in mind that the warmth of the welcome given by the people of Great Britain to President Daniel Ortega at the weekend suggests that we should support positive policies that will assist a country which has been savaged by a war not of its own making, which has lost 60,000 people, and where there is clearly a need for investment in education, health care, and the rest? Will the Minister take this great opportunity to open a new chapter in the relations between this country and Nicaragua?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's account of public joy is somewhat selective. It remains our policy to concentrate bilateral aid programmes on the poorest countries and on Commonwealth countries as much as possible. There are 60 countries in the world poorer than Nicaragua.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that Nicaragua's thoroughly reprehensible regime is far less deserving of aid than the excellent programme that he is running in Gujarat? Does he agree also that it would be better to concentrate aid in that particular area?

Mr. Patten: I am conscious that countries such as Malawi, Bangladesh and Nepal have per capita GNPs about one fifth of Nicaragua's. As for what my hon. Friend said about the political situation in Nicaragua, I think that the whole House should be looking for action, not just words.

Miss Lestor: No doubt the president has informed the Prime Minister of some of Nicaragua's problems, particularly those arising from the war and other difficulties. Can the Minister give an assurance that when he considers the needs of Nicaragua and its progress—especially on human rights, and education—he will ensure that no aid to Nicaragua or any other country, however poor it may be, will have any connection with the supply of arms by us?

Mr. Patten: There is certainly no connection between defence sales and civil aid. That is made clear in the statute setting up my Department and in my programme, and it remains true, whatever recycled Guardian stories may say to the contrary.
No doubt the president of Nicaragua made a number of interesting observations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning, and I should be surprised if my


right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not make a number of interesting observations to the president of Nicaragua.

Nigeria

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is providing for Nigeria's economic reform programme.

Mr. Chris Patten: We are making available to the Government of Nigeria a grant of $100 million for 1989 in support of its economic adjustment programme, which has the backing of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Watts: Now that Nigeria is making welcome moves towards economic recovery and stability, would it not be appropriate for the Commonwealth Development Corporation to consider investment in Nigeria in support of the growth of the private sector?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is certainly right to refer to the progress made in Nigeria, and I know that the Government will be looking forward to discussing that

progress with President Babangida, who is to visit London this week. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to refer to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is indeed exploring the possibility of working in Nigeria and has already visited that country for some initial discussions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Social Security Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (S.R.(N.I.), 1989, No. 103) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Social Security (Contribution) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 (S.R.(N.I.), 1989, No. 104) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Dock Work Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House, on or before that day.

Report and Third Reading
2.—

(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 80 may he varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—

(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days
7.—

(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—

(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub- paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—

(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the


House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Reccommittal
12.—

(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, reccommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The House will be familiar with the simple aim of the Dock Work Bill—to bring the national dock labour scheme to an end quickly, but in an orderly fashion and with continued special provision for dock workers' severance. There are many arguments in favour of abolishing the scheme—including the desirability of ending restrictive practices and reducing the burden that they impose on the taxpayer—but the most potent, in my view, is that the scheme will ensure a better future for the ports industry in this country, and a better future for those working within the industry.
I recognise, of course, that the Labour party does not agree with that view, and that even if I possessed the persuasive powers of Socrates I should probably still not succeed in diverting its members from their chosen path. The merits of the measure, however, are not the central issue in this debate. We are concerned this afternoon with whether or not to establish a timetable for the consideration of the Bill in Committee and when it returns to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Leader of the House answer a question to which I have been trying to find an answer ever since the White Paper was published? All parliamentary questions and all correspondence with the Secretary of State for Employment made it clear that the Government had no plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme in this Parliament. Why have they suddenly changed their mind?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that statement is correct. I remember answering many questions from this Dispatch Box, and I have no doubt that I consulted my right hon. Friend before we said that we had no plans "at present" to abolish the scheme. We then made a statement and proceeded from that date. I do not think that we completely ruled out such action at any time. The Bill was brought in in a perfectly proper fashion.
The arguments for a sensible timetable are compelling. The Labour party is on record as being committed to resisting the Bill by all means at its disposal. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said so on Second Reading, and his hon. Friends have said as much in Committee. We do not have to look far to see what those means will be. What action they are or are not taking outside Parliament is not a matter for this motion, but inside Parliament the Official Opposition's hand was revealed during the first sitting of the Committee, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said:
It may sound naughty and public opinion may be a little shocked, but all we can do is delay the legislation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 April 1989; c. 24.]
The hon. Gentleman has certainly commenced his attempt to do so. During one of his two-hour speeches, I noticed that he was brought to order no fewer than 10 times by the Chairman as he sought to widen the debate to include the reasons why he had not turned up to a previous sitting, the education of members of the Committee, his inability to spell the word "chasuble", television crews' visits to Rotterdam, dock workers' dinners, and component assembly work. He spoke about almost everything except the amendments in question.
It is as well for the hon. Member that he obeyed, for a few seconds at least, the Chairman's injunction to
return to the amendments …— or else.
His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) did not do quite so well. He was brought to order by the Chair for tedious repetition a mere nine times in one of his speeches. The philosophy behind these tactics was expressed in typically disarming fashion by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. He said,
We are saying, 'Hang on a minute, mate. Don't rush it.
and
We shall be in power shortly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 137–150.]
My colleagues and I on this side of the House are unwilling to wait so long to make progress with the Bill. I think that the best way forward to enable the Bill to be discussed in a sensible and balanced manner is thus to pass a timetable motion at this stage of the Committee proceedings. The Committee has now sat for 29 hours. My motion today would allow it to sit for at least another 30. For what the Opposition have repeatedly referred to as a one-clause Bill, that is a very generous amount of time. In addition, there will be a full day until midnight for the remaining stages.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is there any precedent for the imposition of the guillotine after 29 hours, except for the consideration of Bills by a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Wakeham: There were certainly guillotines immediately after Second Readings of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. They were introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can argue his case later. The right


hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has said on a number of occasions in this House that there is always a first time for everything.

Mr. Meacher: And that is now.

Mr. Wakeham: This is a one-clause Bill. The timetable motion will allow plenty of time to debate it.
In the debate last week on the timetable motion for the Self-Governing Schools etc., (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) accused me of celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French revolution by dressing up as Madame Defarge and guillotining everything in sight. However, he has an inaccurate sense of historical analogy. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know that the relevant anniversary is the 150th birthday of Bradshaw's railway timetable, first published in 1839. It is this difference between the guillotine and the timetable which the Opposition do not or pretend not to understand.
The guillotine, as operated by their right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent during his version of the Terror, was designed to cut short debate in its prime. My timetable motions, introduced for the most part at an earlier stage, aim to ensure satisfactory scrutiny of the whole Bill. In deciding whether to move such motions, I have in mind the views of the Procedure Committee report in the last Parliament: that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on procedure last November, I said that, while I preferred to proceed on the basis of agreement wherever possible, and this in the majority of cases, I shared the desire of the Committee to move towards timetable motions, where they are necessary, at a time which allows for properly apportioned consideration.
In the timetable motion debate the other night, I was glad to receive support for this concept from the Social and Liberal Democratic party, in a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). My approach, therefore, is based on a considered timetable for, rather than guillotining of, debate: George Bradshaw rather than Madame Defarge.
The Dock Work Bill is undoubtedly controversial, and I regret that this controversy makes it difficult to reach informal agreement with the Opposition on the Bill's progress. Judging by the reports of the Committee stage that I have read, the Opposition have not exactly been short of time in which to make their points, and, indeed, have been spinning things out for as long as possible.
I hope that the motion that I am moving this afternoon will, by establishing a definite though distant time for debate to finish, concentrate minds and ensure proper scrutiny of this worthwhile and beneficial measure. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not want to get into lengthy disputes with the Leader of the House about historical analogies, but it might be worth putting on record the fact that we shall not be able to celebrate the anniversary of the guillotine for another three years, because I believe that it came into operation in 1792. If everyone were given their credit, the guillotine would not be so called because, using an anachronistic method of putting things out to tender, after M. Guillotine had

proposed the idea, the revolutionary French put it out to tender and the guillotine was built by a German called Schmidt. Perhaps we should be discussing a Schmidt motion today, but I shall not do that, because it will confuse those who do not understand.
This is the 11th guillotine motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House since he was replaced as Government Chief Whip and given the job of upholding the rights and privileges of the House. Each time that he speaks on guillotine motions he gives different justifications, which boil down to a restatement of Wakeham's law —"When debate becomes embarrassing to the Government, I use our majority of 100 to stifle it." That is what he intends to do with this Bill.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: Certainly not at the moment.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Give way.

Mr. Dobson: I said that I will not give way at the moment. I will do so in a minute or two.
The rush to curtail debate on the Dock Work Bill is all of a piece with its sudden and unheralded appearance on the parliamentary agenda. In January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that she did not propose to abolish the dock labour scheme. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government had
no plans to change or abolish it."—[Official Report, 14 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 276.]
On 20 March, when pressed to abolish the scheme by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), the Secretary of State referred him to the Prime Minister's answer in January.
Out of the blue, on 6 April the Secretary of State announced that the dock labour scheme was to be abolished. In an attempt to justify this peculiar timing, he talked of
an emerging consensus … that the scheme should go."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 345.]
It was a strange emerging consensus, because unless the Secretary of State was lying on 20 March—I am sure that he was not—until that date the consensus appeared to exclude him and the Prime Minister. Few things in nature have a life cycle as short as this rather peculiar emerging consensus. The only example of which I can think is the emergence of a blowfly from a decaying carcase, which takes from two to three weeks depending on how warm things are getting, which is significant in itself.
Everyone knows that the Bill was introduced in the hope that it would provoke a strike, which the Government believed would make the Labour party unpopular and, at the same time, make it possible for the Government to blame someone else for the worsening trade figures. That is why it was rushed forward. If the Secretary of State wishes to dispute what I am saying, I challenge him to make public every document and record of discussions between Ministers, civil servants, port employers and shippers over the past six months. If he fails to do so, it will be because he knows that the publication of that evidence will incriminate him.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps my hon. Friend should also ask that the menus of the lunches between the port employers and Conservative Members be


placed on record. They were large and expensive lunches. On this occasion, the port employers must have felt that they had invested their money most wisely.

Mr. Dobson: It seems quite possible that they made what they considered to be a wise investment, although there are other investments that would be wiser.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's arguments about a dock strike, which were also put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in Committee. Can he explain to the House why he believes that a national dock strike, which would lead to imports being held up until the end of the strike and then flooding in, but which would, at the same time, damage our long-term export potential, would help the balance of payments? How can he believe that to be good economics? Perhaps this is the economics of the Socialist madhouse, but it is not the economics of the real world.

Mr. Dobson: Nothing the dockers do could do as much harm to Britain's balance of trade and balance of payments as the combined efforts of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. However, any interruption through industrial action would mean that the Government would be able to cast further doubts—I say "further doubts" deliberately—on the accuracy of the trade figures, which the Government are already calling into question now that they have become an embarrassment.
The announcement was geared to the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. Barry, the biggest town in the constituency, is a scheme port and from the word go, the Tories made every effort to turn the dock labour scheme into an issue on the door-step. The Tory candidate tried repeatedly to breathe life into this artificial issue. If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should read the Western Mail for 8 April, which said that the issue had enabled the Tory candidate to bring an end to the phoney way and start the campaign. At early Labour press conferences, each newly arrived Tory newspaper reporter could be relied on to raise the issue. But look what happened: the people of the Vale saw through the Tory contrivance, and the swing to Labour was the biggest since even before the dock labour scheme was introduced, which was a long time ago.
The reasons the Government give for abolishing the scheme do not bear close scrutiny, which is why they want to curtail the debate. They assert that some scheme ports have lost passengers and cargo. Some have, but that has little or nothing to do with the dock labour scheme. Most of the difference results from technological changes, shifting patterns of trade and the introduction of bulk carriers and containerisation. There are other reasons apart from technological changes in the docks. Most of the passengers who once sailed in and out of Liverpool and Southampton now fly in and out of Heathrow and Gatwick. Some goods that used to go by sea are now air freighted. Who would have believed, 25 years ago, that the economics of flying would eventually have permitted the air freighting of such a common cargo as potatoes?
There has also been a shift in the direction of our trade towards Europe, so that ports in the south-east have tended to do well—whether new, non-scheme ports such as

Felixstowe, old, non-scheme ports such as Dover or previously small, old scheme ports such as Ipswich. The increase in traffic since 1982 in the non-scheme ports has been matched by that in the scheme ports. Major investment is planned or under way in such scheme ports as Immingham, Southampton, Bristol, King's Lynn, Goole, Hull, Ayr, Swansea, Newport and Tilbury. Most of the investment required has been made by opponents of the dock labour scheme who, unlike the Government, have not been taken in by their own propaganda. Their actions have cast doubt on their assertions that the scheme ports cannot compete with non-scheme ports.
The Government's arguments in the House have themselves been contradictory. The Secretary of State for Employment talked about the scheme providing "jobs for life". In the same speech he said:
Jobs have gone … and long lines of workers have volunteered to leave the industry altogether."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 43–44.]
Both those statements cannot be right, and most people realise that the second assertion is much nearer the truth than the first.
What of the remaining scheme dockers—those whose main fear is a loss of reasonable job security and a return to casual working instead of regular guaranteed work? By its very nature, demand for dock work can fluctuate from day to day. The Government want the dock workers to bear the brunt of that fluctuation, and some of the Government's supporters think that dock workers should get paid only when they are loading or unloading ships. Why should dock workers be different from anyone else? Soldiers are not paid only when there is a war, or MPs only when they are voting. Parliamentary correspondents do not get paid only when they are sitting in the Press Gallery; if they did, many of them would have their money stopped at this moment. Industrial correspondents are paid even when there are no disputes and when their newspaper contains no stories of disputes.
Both the Government and the employers say that they do not intend to reintroduce casual working in the scheme ports. If the employers mean what they say, they should negotiate with the Transport and General Workers Union to reach a binding agreement not to introduce casual working. If the Government mean what they say, they should pass a law to guarantee just that. To provide statutory backing for regular working would make no difference if the port employers are telling the truth; such legislation would come into operation only if it turned out that the employers had been lying. The Secretary of State should show some confidence in the good faith of his friends, the port employers.
The port employers are, indeed, the good friends of the Tory party and, to be fair, the Tories have been good friends to the port employers. That is only in accordance with the Tory maxim that a friend who gives £100,000 to party funds is a friend indeed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how friendly the Labour party is with the Transport and General Workers Union—the union that supports the dockers? How much has the TGWU given the Labour party to oppose the measure?

Mr. Dobson: As everybody knows, the TGWU gives substantial sums to sustain the Labour party. It is worth remembering that the union is there to represent the dockers, not to tell them what to do. We should remember


the basic democratic arrangements in the trade unions—different from the rather undemocratic arrangements surrounding some of the port employers. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which is part of P and 0 —the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise, who have still to be prosecuted—in effect bought planning permission from the Tory party for further development at Felixstowe. To get the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill through the House, the Prime Minister stayed up half the night and the Government sacrificed a whole day of Government business.

Mr. Don Dixon: They had a champagne party.

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) says, they had a champagne party to help sustain the weaker brethren through the long watches of the night. Similar Tory help has been given to Associated British Ports, to help it to promote some if its Bills. At the time, some of my colleagues asked whether there was no end to this dubious Government's dubious help for the port employers. The answer appears to be no. The Bill is unique; it quite reverses the usual role of an Employment Minister. Previous holders of the post have seen it as their job to promote good industrial relations and to keep disputes to a minimum, and have introduced measures which they believed, rightly or wrongly, would achieve that.
The Dock Work Bill is different. It is intended to do quite the reverse—to provoke an industrial dispute. If not, why was there no consultation? Take the proposed reform of the legal profession. In response to threatened industrial action, the judges got their consultation period extended. That happened after a long debate in the House of Lords, where they really do have jobs for life. In his discussions about the future of the National Health Service, the Secretary of State for Health has occasionally behaved as though he thought he was dealing with dockers rather than doctors but it seems that his recent personal and party experiences in Vale of Glamorgan have weakened his resolve.
Now it is only the scheme workers who are being treated like the loyal workers at GCHQ and told without warning that their rights are being taken away. This Bill has been introduced not in the interests of the country or even in the interests of the ports industry—it has certainly not been introduced in the interests of the port workers —but in what the Government wrongly believe will be the short-term interest of the Tory party. It is seen by it as a piece of news management, not something which affects the lives of dock workers and their families.
The timing of this guillotine was intended as another piece of news management, but it has gone wrong. Today was originally to have been devoted to a debate on the Finance Bill. That was changed. This guillotine debate was planned so that it would coincide with the tube strike which the Government believed would occur today, so, at one and the same time, industrial strife would have been the topic both in and out of Parliament. Alas for the Government, in Burns' immortal words
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley.
No doubt with unintended irony, London Regional Transport has upset the Government's timing of the debate by using the Government's own industrial relation laws to stop a tube strike starting today. Things are getting bad. Even Bernard Ingham appears to be losing his grip.
If Ministers and the Leader of the House challenge what I say, will the Leader of the House explain why this guillotine motion was suddenly brought forward and why it became more important than the Finance Bill, and the debate later this week on the future of the National Health Service? From experience, we have come to know that everything that now takes place in this House is geared to news management to maximise what the Government believe will be political benefits for the Tory party.
The Government should abandon this guillotine and withdraw the Bill. If they are really interested in the future of the ports industry, they should bring employers and employees together to work out a future for the docks industry that enables it to modernise and expand and, at the same time, meet the legitimate wishes of dock workers for secure and regular work. All hon. Members have relatively secure and regular work. We should not wish to reduce the working conditions of others who are worse off than ourselves, as a bit of party political spite and news management. That is why Opposition Members oppose the guillotine today.

Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) criticised the Government because, in his view, they changed their mind about the abolition of the dock labour scheme. At the very moment at which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House, a meeting of his party's national executive was taking place. It is a matter of deep regret to you, Mr. Speaker, as it is to me that neither the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Fool.) nor the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is a member of the national executive. Their stabilising influence would have been much in demand.
The remarks that characterised the hon. Gentleman's speech—those about changing policy—could not have been made at a more opportune time. We are told that the Labour party's most important sovereign body—its national executive, no less—is examining every aspect of Labour party policy. Judging from some of the criticisms that have come from Left-wing members of the Labour party, it is certainly possible—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has just started his speech, but I hope that he will relate his remarks to the timetable motion.

Mr. Gow: I was saying that an accusation that was levelled at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was that the Government had changed their policy. That accusation can properly be levelled at my right hon. Friend—it is a fair allegation—but there is no sin in changing policy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There has never been any doubt in the Government's mind or in their proposals that at some stage—they have said this in writing—they intended to tackle the national dock labour scheme. The deception in the change of policy is that they said that it would not be tackled this Parliament, but suddenly, with no more than 24 hours' notice, a White Paper and a Bill were produced.

Mr. Gow: I reject the charge of deception that has been levelled at the Treasury Bench. Although I agree that there


has been a change of policy, it lies ill on the lips of the shadow Leader of the House to rebuke us for changing our policy when today and tomorrow of all days the Labour party is engaged on what purports to be a change in its policy.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are different? My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said two years ago that it was his intention to review his policy, but the Government were saying that they had no plans to abolish the dock labour scheme precisely when they were feverishly working on the White Paper. The Labour party has been completely honest and open, whereas the Government have been completely dishonest.

Mr. Gow: There is certainly room for two views on the openness of the Labour party when conducting its policy review. We are told that the great documents that are under consideration today will not be published until next week. I do not want to stray too much into the policy of the Labour party—

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Gow: No, I shall not give way, because I should like to make a bit of progress.
There is another aspect to the charge that has been levelled at my right hon. Friend with which I wish to deal. Almost 30 years ago, I made a journey to Blackpool. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was also there. We both attended the Labour party conference that followed the then unprecedented third successive defeat of the right hon. Gentleman's party. He will remember as vividly as I do the speech made by Aneurin Bevan, who said, "You know, comrades, to change policies is not a confession of sin; otherwise the whole of history would be a series of confessions." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember those words.
I advise my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I welcome most warmly the change of policy or change of timing that led to the introduction of the Dock Work Bill. I do not wish to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for having decided to introduce that measure at this time. If I have any criticism of my right hon. Friends, it is that they did not introduce the Bill earlier. The Government having made the courageous and correct decision to introduce the Bill, and my having studied what happened in Committee, having read the speeches of some Opposition Members and having been reminded of the 29 hours that have passed, it is perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend's timetable motion would have been justified, even had he introduced it earlier. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, who has expounded the principles upon which the introduction of a timetable motion should rest, is entirely justified in what he has done.
I go further. I believe that there is a case for such actions when it becomes clear—as it frequently does, even before we embark on the Committee stage of a Bill—that there will be deep controversy and deep hostility. Had I been in the shoes of the hon. Member of Holborn and St. Pancras —it is difficult to put myself into the mind of a Socialist, but I shall try—had I been a member of the Opposition

and had I been strongly opposed to the Bill, of course I should have deployed precisely the tactics that have been employed by the Labour party in Committee. Nobody is rebuking Opposition Members for doing that. All we are saying is that the Government have a responsibility to secure the passage of their legislation. While ensuring a reasonable opportunity for debate and in relation to the length of the Bill, this timetable motion is most generous.
Therefore, that which we are being asked to do this afternoon is entirely reasonable. I hope that the Bill, which has been too long delayed, will reach the statute book in the minimum time.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not necessarily the number of clauses in the Bill that matters, but the effect that one clause will have on the entire industry? Therefore, his argument that it requires only a brief period of discussion does not face up to the reality that those eight clauses will overturn completely the practices in one of this country's key industries.

Mr. Gow: I do not under-estimate for one moment the importance and significance of the Bill or the far-reaching consequences that it will have for our docks and for our dockers. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that the situation that will apply in our docks after the Bill has reached the statute book will be greatly superior to that which we have endured for so long to the great disadvantage of our country and of those who work under the present scheme.
I reject the accusations of the shadow Leader of the House. I believe that the motion is entirely justified. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book.

Mr. Michael Foot: As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others have said, it is inevitable that Ministers and others will change their minds about particular forms of legislation that have been before the House. Nobody would advance the idea that such changes should be denounced just because they are changes. That would be utterly absurd on any day of the week, let alone on a day when my party may be discussing policies elsewhere.
However, it is a matter of great importance to the House that, when changes are made—especially dealing with previous agreements that may have been made with great sections of the community—those changes should be carried through in a way which at least to some degree conforms with the House's conventions, which have been established to protect people's good faith and previous agreements.
I have a sort of double interest in the dock labour scheme and what the Leader of the House has proposed. I am interested because I recall what happened both when I was Leader of the House and when the dock labour scheme was discussed. It is bad faith for the Government to do what they are proposing, partly for the reasons that have been elaborated by my hon. Friends, which I will reiterate, and partly because of what happened some years ago.
Between 1970 and 1979, both under the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and under the Labour Government, there were many discussions between dockers' leaders and employers


and people engaged in the dock industry, after which it was agreed to continue the dock labour scheme, partly because of what occurred just after the war—casual employment and all the horrors associated with that—and because later we wished to establish the scheme on a more far-reaching basis. That was why we introduced the Dock Work Regulation Bill in 1976 on which there was a guillotine motion.
However, the Leader of the House and, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State for Employment appear to forget the agreements that were made between dockers' leaders, the trade unions—chiefly the Transport and General Workers Union, although it was not the sole union dealing with the docks—and the dock employers. There was an agreement between Lord Aldington and Jack Jones, which was known as the Jones-Aldington agreement. It was the basis on which they provided for the future of the industry for a number of years ahead.
As often happens in properly conducted industrial affairs, concessions were made on both sides, and agreement was reached between the representative of the employers, Lord Aldington, and Jack Jones, who represented the Transport and General Workers Union. They came to a bargain, but the Government have torn it up.
I am sure that Lord Aldington would never have been a party to such a procedure as this. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government have ever asked him or those who speak for him on these matters what he thinks about it. An agreement was reached between the employers, represented by Lord Aldington, and the unions, represented by Jack Jones. If, for whatever reasons, it is to be departed from, the Government should say, "Let us negotiate. Let us see what we agreed before and how we may change it." The Department of Employment should have followed that procedure, whatever Lord Aldington had to say. That is why it is so disgraceful for the Department to proceed in this way without any offer of negotiations.
Time and again when the Bill was discussed the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put the Government on the spot when he said, "Won't you agree to negotiations? Why have you rejected them? Why not have negotiations now? There is still a chance." Every offer and every suggestion of a way to settle the matter by negotiation rather than by dispute was mooted by my hon. Friend in a most admirable speech for the Opposition.
If peace breaks down, the guilt will rest directly on the Government Front Bench. The chief guilt lies with the Secretary of State for Employment, but now it must be shared by the Leader of the House, who is a party to this method of deceiving the House of Commons. This is a deceit. Not many weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and I were present when the matter was discussed. The Government gave not the slightest sign that they would change their mind and depart from the agreement. In a sense they accepted our arguments and rejected those on the Order Paper tabled by Tory Members. Again, that does not bind the Government for ever, but if they wished to be honest in changing the position they should have talked to the unions, the dockers and the House of Commons about it. Instead, they did the whole manoeuvre behind everybody's backs.
That is why I say that the Leader of the House has behaved disgracefully. He could have stopped this. He

could have said, "All right, first let's see if we can negotiate with those with whom we negotiated previously. Let us see whether the unions consider the circumstances to be a s much changed as the employers do."
The Government have torn up an agreement which was reached despite great difficulties in the docks. They have torn it up unilaterally. How can they think that they can ever say convincingly to workers, "You must stand by your agreements. You must not break any agreement," when they have broken up most brazenly the whole agreement between employers, the Government and dock workers?
The other day we had exchanges about how the Government would operate these guillotine motions. The Leader of the House has come near to telling us that he favours a permanent system of timetable motions. We all know that that has been debated frequently in the House and that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure favours the proposal, but the House has always rejected it, and rightly so.
Even when I was in government and wanted to use timetable motions—I was forced to use them in certain circumstances, to maintain any sort of rights for the Government—I was opposed to having a system of gullotine motions settled in advance, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is now moving towards. The Leader of the House is doing so surreptitiously. He did not have the nerve to tell the country and the House about the exact procedure for dealing with the dock labour scheme and, in the same way, he has not told us exactly what he intends to do about this procedure. He seems to favour a settled system of timetable motions, and he is moving pretty fast towards it. He has introduced more guillotine motions than any other Leader of the House. That is all the more indefensible for a Leader of the House whose Government have such a huge majority. Almost all the measures would have been passed through the House quite easily without being guillotined.
This Bill may have taken a bit longer, but, with the Government's huge majority, it would still have been passed. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not have forfeited the measure. It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he favours a full timetable system before Bills are introduced. I oppose that, as should all Opposition parties and Governments with any sense about Parliament's future.
Such automatic and wide-ranging timetable motions play straight into the hands of the Government. They give the Government every power to complete the business, whatever the opposition from whatever quarter, and however deceitfully the Government have operated, even if they have gone behind the backs of the House, as they have with the dock labour scheme. The Government know that the legislation will go through. I hope that the House of Commons will always reject regular timetable motions which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards, even if he has not yet had the nerve to put it forward as a general proposition.

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. However, he is not being in any way fair. I made it abundantly clear that I did not agree with the report of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended the automatic timetabling of public Bills, and I got into a fair amount of trouble for doing so. I have resisted following that recommendation. I have brought in


timetabling earlier than in the past, although not by an enormous number of hours, in order to give better consideraton to the legislation. It is better for the House to work as closely as possible with agreement on both sides. A strong body of opinion in the House wants automatic timetabling of Bills. However, I do not agree with that, for the reasons described by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Foot: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Anybody who was listening to him a few minutes ago would have drawn a different conclusion. He was near to applauding the Liberals' most ill-advised proposal that timetabling should be done on a regular basis. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had a conversion on this heavily trafficked road to Damascus and that we have plucked him back to righteousness on that crowded thoroughfare, although I do not know how long he will stay there.
The right hon. Gentleman and I had a slight difference of opinion one evening last week. I quoted to him the extraordinary statement about guillotine motions made by Lord Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was being interviewed by Mr. Brian Walden and, as I said, I was not sure who was interviewing whom. Brian Walden laid it on thick about the wretched, shoddy, fifth-rate legislation that was being passed through the House of Lords and the House of Commons with no proper preparation. No hon. Member would doubt the truth of his allegations about the quality of the Government's legislation. However, to my surprise—because he is a genial fellow—Lord Whitelaw said that I was responsible for this position.
When I come to my final day I shall be perfectly prepared to answer for quite a number of parliamentary sins and I know them better than any other hon. Member. However, I shall not be made answerable for the shady and shoddy legislation which the right hon. Gentleman shovels through the House in the most disreputable manner. This is another example of it. The legislation being forced through the House is deteriorating rapidly.
I do not blame the draftsmen; I know what pressures are put on them. Bad legislation was pushed through last year—the poll tax, and so on—and at the fag end of the autumn the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce another half dozen guillotine motions to get the stuff through by the final day. Now, it is happening again.
It is even worse in this Session. All who sat through the two debates on the official secrets Bill know what a shoddy piece of legislation it is. Yet the Government hardly permitted a single amendment of substance to the measure, in this or the other place. The right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have an even bigger and more irresponsible majority in the House of Lords than they can manipulate here; that is becoming a dangerous thing for British democracy.
I do not believe that pleas from me or others will change the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The House now has no proper access to the Cabinet. The first business of the Cabinet should involve the Leader of the House telling the Prime Minister and reporting faithfully to the elective dictatorship what has occurred in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done that job properly in recent weeks and months, he would have had to report that the Government might have won a few votes but had hardly

ever won a debate. I challenge anyone to deny that what I am saying was true of the official secrets debate and of the last measures on which the right hon. Gentleman introduced a guillotine. He left it a bit late last time—we still had quite a good debate. He will not run that risk again. This time the chopper comes down even more quickly.
It is even more evil when the guillotine is applied to a measure that is of importance not only to the way in which we conduct our affairs here but to people of the country who are of great importance—the dockers. They have as many rights as others. The judges can tell the Government that they must have a chance to discuss proposals before they are shovelled through over their heads; the dockers have as much right to say that as the judges.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave mistake by introducing this measure, and he has done great injury to the House. In Cabinet on Thursday he should report that fact and advise the Government not to have another guillotine for a few weeks, because the British House of Commons will not stand for this for ever.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the motion. It is important to move on and reach conclusions on this subject.
In Committee, it has been openly admitted several times, particularly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that Opposition Members intend to string out the proceedings as long as possible. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has diligently attended when he has made speeches—but that is about all. He has been quick to leave as soon as he finishes.
I was interested to hear the shadow Leader of the House say that things were going from bad to worse. He implied that today's business had been changed to try to coincide with the tube strike. Next he will accuse the Government of having been behind the Underground management's move in the courts to try to have the strike delayed—a strange accusation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is short of accusations to make, but he cannot defend the sort of tactics which his fellow hon. Members have deployed in Committee. They have tried to keep the Committee going for as long as possible without contributing to the debate. He said that he wanted the debate to be long. Nobody objects to lengthy debates, so long as they are genuine, but the Chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), has had to call hon. Members to order. For example, he said recently:
I must admit that I am waiting with eager anticipation for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to refer to the amendments rather than explaining why he was not present during the previous sitting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 124.]
The Chairman has had to make that sort of statement on many occasions.
Labour Members have made the strange suggestion that we introduced this legislation to promote a strike. That is an odd claim, even by their standards, because we take pleasure in the knowledge that the number of strikes has fallen dramatically since we have made unions more accountable to their members for their actions. Strikes hurt the nation's economy and its reputation.

Mr. Loyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of strikes has been reduced, not for the reasons


that he suggests but because trade unions have had a steel ring put round them by legislation? That makes it virtually impossible for strike action to occur without endangering not just union finances but possibly the unions themselves. But workers continue to worry about what is happening to their industries as a result of measures being taken by the Government.

Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot see the hon. Gentleman's objection to trade unions having to ballot their members before strikes are called. He may be right to say that that impedes the activities of the unions, but it gives rights to trade unionists, those who must earn a living and who sometimes must accept action which is imposed on them and which they would prefer not to take. If we are charged with having returned trade unions to their members, I plead guilty with pleasure. Indeed, it could be said that trade union legislation has not gone far enough. After all, a strike lasting 12 months occurred against British Coal, when a number of us wanted to go to work and in the end succeeded in doing so.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows about mining—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] He represents part of Derbyshire and I believe he was a miner. He occupies one of the greatest Tory seats in the country, embodying, among other places, Chatsworth house. Is he not aware of the fundamental difference between dictatorship and democracy—the right to withdraw one's labour? It is now virtually impossible for workers to engage in that democratic right because the anti-trade union laws make it likely that unions will have their funds sequestrated.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously at total odds with all the trade unions reforms that we have introduced. Perhaps that is why the Labour party does not intend to repeal a number of them—[Interruption.]— according to those attending a great meeting that is taking place today at the home of the very trade union that has most to fear from the legislation that we are discussing.
What will be the effect of the Bill at the end of the day? We have been told of non-scheme ports—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall complete the point that I am making before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We know that some workers in non-scheme ports are earning more than their counterparts in scheme ports, and it seems that the Opposition are determined that that should continue. They are not prepared to allow individuals to earn the money they want.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Transport house is still the headquarters of the Labour party? If so, he is some years out of date.

Mr. McLoughlin: Of course I am not suggesting that. I know that the Labour party's headquarters is at Walworth road. The meeting of today's national executive committee is taking place at Transport house. At least, that is what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he was about to attend the meeting to condemn everything that appears in the documents that are to be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He

thinks that every piece of trade union reform legislation that the Government have introduced should be repealed. That is not what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am being side-tracked. I am sure that you would soon call me back to order if I were to continue to stray, as it were.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am glad to have the opportunity to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech before he leaves the important issues of industrial relations in the docks and the Labour party's attitude to them. I understand that a meeting will take place today and tomorrow to fudge and mudge, to quote the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Has my hon. Friend seen the transcript of the television programme "On the Record"? I refer to the programme on 23 April entitled "Union Powers Under a Labour Government", during which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) promised that a Labour Government would bring back secondary picketing. What does my hon. Friend think the effect of that would be on labour relations?

Mr. McLoughlin: I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who leads for the Opposition in Committee, found himself in a dilemma. We learned after he made that statement that he w as not speaking for the Labour party officially. Instead, he was speaking in a personal capacity. My hon. Friends and I asked the hon. Gentleman in Committee whether he was speaking as an Opposition spokesman or in a personal capacity. I do not want to dwell on that issue any longer.
Shortly after it was announced that the Bill would be introduced to the House of Commons, I heard an interesting interview with the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the Jimmy Young programme. Jimmy Young asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Labour party felt so strongly about the Bill that it would reintroduce the dock labour scheme as a matter of urgency if there were another Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting answer. He said that Jimmy Young had asked a purely hypothetical question. I was not sure what was hypothetical—another Labour Government or the reintroduction of the dock labour scheme. The hon. Gentleman did not make that clear. Probably both events are hypothetical. The Labour party has been reluctant to declare that it feels so strongly about this measure—

Mr. Meacher: I have given no interview to any Jimmy Young show on this issue. What the hon. Gentleman says is pure rubbish.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman had better find out— [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement, I most definitely withdraw. I can only say that someone who gave the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West was interviewed on B13C Radio 2 about three or four weeks ago. I shall check the record, as I am sure will the hon. Gentleman. However, if he says that he gave no interview on the Jimmy Young show, I withdraw.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been reluctant to say that there would be circumstances in which the Labour party would be eager to reintroduce the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Jimmy Young programme often picks up news interviews and that it may well have used an interview from another part of the BBC? Was it not noticeable that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did not say that he disagreed with my hon. Friend's argument? He did not say that that was not what he was saying in other interviews. Perhaps it is merely that he did not say what my hon. Friend has suggested was said by him during a Jimmy Young programme.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Oldham, West was certainly very reluctant to say that a Labour Government would reintroduce the scheme. In Committee, he found it difficult even to justify the present scheme. Instead, the Opposition referred back to other documents, saying that they would like to talk about the scheme and expressing the view that it needs changes—but they have not made any concrete proposals.
However, in Committee we heard a number of comments such as that made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). The hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is a new Member and does not know the ways of Parliament. In these circumstances the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay. It is our only weapon, especially against a Government who so shamelessly misuse their powers.
When I challenged the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he replied:
I shall underline the simple constitutional point for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who seems too obtuse to grasp it. The Opposition's only weapon is delay. That weapon will be deployed in proportion to the Government's intransigence in trying to force the Bill through. If they behave in this fashion the weapon of delay will be mobilised at length."—[Official Report, Standing Committe A, 2 May 1989; c. 216, 225.]
Any negotiations that may have taken place had no impact on the activities of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who was recently sacked from the Opposition Front Bench because he started work with a new television company. Incidentally, his attendance at Standing Committee A was a little questionable, but that is fair enough. He still made speeches of great length and took up the time of the Committee. He let the cat out of the bag, saying that the Opposition's only intention was to delay the Bill's progress through the Committee, come what may.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman, in quoting from the Official Report of Standing Committee A, attempts to suggest that it was only the Opposition who tried to introduce delay. If that is so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the remark made by the Chairman of that Committee, who is not a member of the Labour party, when he said:
It must be about two hours since I heard anything relevant to the amendments.
Then, in response to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Chairman commented:
My remarks applied to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the Minister.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the misuse of time by the incompetent bunch of Ministers who serve on the Committee. It is their inability to answer questions properly that delayed the proceedings. That was highlighted by the Committee's Tory Chairman when he said:

Thoughts have been expressed on both sides of the Committee, from the Treasury Bench and elsewhere, in interventions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 221.]
From that it is clear that ministeral team's incompetence has delayed the Bill.

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree that the Chairman of the Committee made that point. However, in fairness to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who wound up the debate, I point out that he was trying to respond to some of the spurious points made by Opposition Members. I should be happy to produce a full breakdown of the time taken by Opposition Members in that Committee. A lot of time wasting went on, but most of it came from those hon. Members who spoke the longest. A full breakdown of the time taken by the various speakers will give my right hon. and hon. Friends nothing to worry about, because their interventions were short and to the point. Many of the comments that have been quoted suggest that the Opposition have wasted a tremendous amount of time.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee. Can he cite one occasion on which any Conservative Back Benchers have made any contribution whatever?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse us of delaying the Committee and making spurious points, and tell us off for not taking part. That, I think, sums up our case. The charge against Conservative Members this afternoon is that we have not taken part in the debates—that we have stood back to let the Opposition have their say if they want, and that after 29 hours we have still not managed to complete the stand part debate on clause 1.
For a number of reasons, I think it absolutely right for us to move forward to get the Bill on to the statute book —not least for the benefit of those employed under the dock labour scheme. I do not know whether Labour Members are going round saying, "We are fighting this tooth and nail in the House of Commons and we will try to stop it getting through," but that is unfair on those employed in the dock labour scheme: their uncertainty must be put to an end as quickly as possible. I think that all Conservative Members will give wholehearted support to the motion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Much of the debate has proceeded on the basis that the Government have either changed their mind or not done so; that there is a reason for the Bill, or no reason for it. The interesting thing is, however, that from beginning to end no single Minister or Back Bencher has said why it was necessary to introduce the Bill at this time.
We know, of course, that there have been discussions about the dock labour scheme for many years. The Government sometimes seem to operate as though they were in a fog of ignorance: they keep saying that the scheme must be changed, but the truth is that the scheme as it is now is quite different from the scheme as it was first introduced. Several changes have been made, and each of those changes has been arrived at through discussion and sometimes argument. Both sides have recognised that nothing is immutable: when a scheme is in operation for


more than 40 years, some wrinkles may be expected to develop. Alterations in technology and in patterns of trade are expected to warrant change, which should be considered openly.
Our charge against the Government is that they have not considered the issue openly. Every time that it has been raised in this Session, they have said—certainly by implication, and in some instances specifically—that they have no plans to tackle the dock work labour scheme in the current Parliament. I defy anyone to produce a precedent—other than emergency war legislation, for instance—for the publication of a White Paper on one day and a Bill on the next, and the application of the guillotine within a month. There is neither precedent nor reason for such action.
There is an inconsistency that no one can understand in what the Government are saying, which is why the Bill must be debated fully. The Secretary of State has trumpeted that this grand design will produce 50,000 jobs; the strange thing is that the Bill provides for £25 million in redundancy pay, which means that between 1,400 and 2,500 people are to be made redundant. That is an odd way of creating jobs—sacking nearly one third of the labour force at the outset. It will not bear close examination.
The White Paper and the Minister's speech on Second Reading cited Aberdeen harbour as one of the reasons why it was essential that the Bill should be introduced with such haste. The record must be put straight. There have been no industrial relations problems in the port of Aberdeen of any kind that would justify the legislation. There has been a dispute in the fish market, which is part of Aberdeen docks, but the record has to be set straight. The difficulties were not due to the fish market porters. There have been many problems in the fishing industry. There have been quota changes; much less fish has been landed throughout the United Kingdom; there have been changes in the pattern of catches; the big trawlers no longer sail from Aberdeen, partly because of economic circumstances. The fish landing company therefore went bust; it could not pay its way. Only 12 months ago it under-estimated how much fish would be landed in Aberdeen. That had nothing to do with the scheme: it was purely circumstantial.
After the company virtually went into liquidation, the Aberdeen harbour board took up the burden of trying to obtain a new licence and establish a new company. I do not blame the harbour board for seeking to make changes in working practices and in the hours worked. However, it was more than reasonable that the fish market porters should say, "If you want to change our working conditions and if you want us to work longer, we expect some recompense for it." If their working conditions were to be changed, why should they not expect to receive some recompense for it?
These matters were still under discussion when the White Paper was published. It seems that in his haste the Secretary of State did not realise that there were difficulties at Aberdeen. As there have been no consultations and discussions, the establishment of a new fish landing company is in abeyance. Neither the Aberdeen harbour board nor the trade union knows how to continue the discussions. They do not know what is to happen. That is crazy.
The result of the Secretary of State's precipitate decision is that some fish market porters are being treated differently from others. Had I spoken in a debate when the White Paper was published, I might have commended the

Secretary of State for acceding to the request of Aberdeen Members of Parliament to meet the whole of the redundancy cost—£25,000—to compensate those who have to leave the industry as a result of restructuring. Even today I might also commend him for that. However, it is quite clear that he deliberately and provocatively deceived those people into taking £25,000 in severence pay, hoping that it would all be out of the way before the offer of £35,000 came on the scene.
Some of the fish market porters accepted the £25,000 redundancy payment, while others were allowed to take their names off the list. Those who applied for the £25,000 redundancy payment were told after the £35,000 announcement, "Hard luck, your name has already gone in. The Secretary of State, by not letting on what was happening, has cost you £10,000, but that's your hard luck." I do not understand how the Secretary of State, on his salary, could justify deliberately deceiving men into accepting a lower redundancy payment than the one which would be on offer a couple of days later. It was a disgraceful abuse of his parliamentary privilege.
The Secretary of State was not concerned about the loss of £10,000 by each man. All he was concerned about was getting as many people as possible to take the £25,000, which he said he would meet in full, so that—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening because, although he may think it is of no account, this is a very serious matter—by this deceitful method he could save his friends, the employers, £17,500 per man. That will be their share of the transitional payments. We have a right to be told when the Government made up their minds to introduce the Bill. On what day did they decide to introduce it? Did they realise the discrimination that they would create in Aberdeen by announcing, in the middle of discussions about restructuring the fish landing company, that they intended to introduce the Bill?
I have written to the Secretary of State about one case. I hope that he will at least be generous enough to say that some people were caught out. He will plead his innocence—I should be surprised if he pleaded his guilt—and say that it is unfortunate. I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider the issue of fish market porters who negotiated in good faith but accepted a lower redundancy payment than is currently available.
On Monday 3 April—again, the deception involved was enormous—negotiations between the Aberdeen harbour board and the trade union appeared to be moving smoothly. Fair concessions were being made and much hard bargaining was being done, but negotiations were moving. I am told by union representatives in Aberdeen that on Wednesday the board suddenly did not want to know. I have not consulted Aberdeen harbour board, which might hold a different view, but the men feel bitter and sour. They believe that the Government tipped off employers and that employers decided that all negotiations were off and prepared to ride out the storm because they knew that the Government were to scrap the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop pretending that the position at Aberdeen fish market had anything to do with the abolition of the scheme.
Aberdeen has had a magnificent investment and trade record over the years. A few years ago, the harbour was in such a rotting state that if its gates were not closed when the tide went out the harbour would collapse. In negotiations with employers, a trade union convenor used to say, "If you do not settle by 5 o'clock, I will wave my


hankie at the window and the dock gates will not be shut." Employers capitulated immediately, because they knew that the port would collapse.
I accept that Aberdeen has benefited from North sea oil and changing industrial conditions. The dock labour scheme has done nothing to hold back Aberdeen's development as a port. Investment in, and industrial relations at, the port have been very good, so the Minister cannot use that as a reason for this precipitate action or the guillotine.
No reason has been given for the lack of discussion between the Government, unions and employers. It is not as though there has not been sufficient time for those discussions to take place. When I was the Labour party's shadow transport spokesman, I had extensive discussions with trade unions and the National Association of Port Employers. We held long and detailed discussions about the way forward. The National Association of Port Employers always said that it was willing to negotiate and discuss matters, but again no explanation has been given for its change of mind. It was seized of the need for moderation and understood that change would occur only through discussion with unions. I warned it—and I warn it now—that if change were required and desirable, it would come about only if a proper package were put before unions and employers.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Surely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making—I appreciate that he is making it in good faith and for the highest reasons—is undermined by the fact that Mr. John Connolly, who is convenor of the docks section of the Transport and General Workers Union, made it abundantly clear that there was no negotiation on the dock labour scheme and that it was outside consideration altogether.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman displays his complete ignorance of industrial relations. Any initiative had to be taken by port employers; no package had been put before the unions. If employers had been asked, "Will you be prepared to negotiate at the end of the dock labour scheme?" they would not have said, "Yes, we will negotiate," without any idea of what was in mind. What utter nonsense. I do not know what business the hon. Gentleman is in, but if he signed a contract on the understanding that its conditions would be changed later and its details thrashed out, he would be bankrupt before very long.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I should like to get on; many hon. Members wish to speak.
I told the National Association of Port Employers that it would have to be prepared to accept a national negotiation scheme. It said, "Yes, we understand that." I said, "You must realise that the national pension scheme will have to be maintained." It said, "Yes, we understand that." On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that nothing in the Bill would change the pension scheme, but that does not appear to be what employers think. They are saying, "These things will have to be discussed later." In every privatisation of a public company, be it railways, buses or airports, the Government have always frozen the existing pension scheme and said that new pension

arrangements must be negotiated with the new company. Under the Bill, there will be individual discussions port by port. I warn employers that workers will not wear that.
I warned the National Association of Port Employers that the national training scheme would have to be maintained. It said, "Yes, of course; that is what we want to happen." Part of the employers' case—I am surprised that Conservative Members have put the employers' case so badly—has been that the national dock labour scheme made it difficult to recruit and train new employees. That is nonsense, but it is what they said. If we take the Government at face value, it is clear that they have reneged again on this issue, because the White Paper makes it clear that these matters are best dealt with port by port.
The national medical scheme for dockers, which is one of the best of its kind in any industry, is to be broken up and decided port by port. I told the National Association of Port Employers that there would have to be some sort of national contract and some security of employment. After 10 years of Tory government, we know that no one in industry has security of employment in the sense that we should like, but there must be some security, guarantee or promise that there will be no return to casual labour. Employers have said, "We shall not return to casual labour," but the truth is that they are doing so. Port employers have said that they want a core labour force to meet the minimum throughput of a port. They want to take on additional labour as and when it is required. If that is not casual labour, I do not know what is. They must stop using language that is completely different from reality.
The Bill will scrap all the negotiations and agreements that have been built up over many years, which is why it must be properly discussed. It is unprecedented, because I do not know of any Bill that says that, in the interests of haste, a public body will be directed to sell its assets at below market value simply to get things through. That is astonishing and would be fraudulent in ordinary business—it is certainly fraudulent in thought.
The Government are not concerned about industrial relations. I do not know what will happen about the dockers' ballot, and it is not a matter in which I should intervene. I am a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and I should resent it if my colleagues advised me how to deal with industrial relations. Therefore, I shall not presume to advise the Transport and General Workers Union on a matter with which it must deal.
Whatever the outcome, the Secretary of State must be in no doubt that relationships in the ports industry will be soured for many years to come. There will be a running sore, port by port, as employers scramble to drive down conditions as hard as they possibly can. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I must confess a sense of disappointment and bitterness, to put it mildly, that the National Association of Port Employers allowed itself to be carried by hysteria whipped up by Conservative Back Benchers, or, to be more suspicious, connived in the whipping up of that hysteria. I am deeply disappointed that the many hours of negotiations I had with it, in which I accepted what was said in good faith, have been set aside, either because it was unwilling to stand up to the Government or for some other reason. People will draw their own conclusions.
I am proud that the voters of the Vale of Glamorgan took the decision they did. It marks a turning point in history. The witch's spell has been broken and the 10 years'


celebratory events which were supposed to happen last week turned out not to be a celebration. People's minds have been concentrated on events. They are beginning to understand that the Government, who have had an unprecedented opportunity, with their large majority and the large North sea oil revenues, to make this country one of the best industrially—

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not.
The Government have destroyed every opportunity and ordinary people's belief in Government. The time will soon come when they will rue the day.

5 pm

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Debates on timetable motions have become a ritual in recent years. It is interesting to look back at the history of timetable motions to see how debates were prolonged in the 19th century and how Governments then tackled the problem of Opposition Members speaking for the sake of speaking without wishing legislation to progress. The record for speaking in the House is held by Henry Brougham who, on 7 February 1828, spoke for six hours on law reform. In more recent times, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have both spoken at great length. In the past week, we have had an example of a three-hour speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), following in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who spoke for three hours earlier this year.
Long speeches in the House, although rare, are not unknown and in Committee, the records are even longer. The record is held by the Gas Bill in 1948, when the debate lasted for 49 hours non-stop from 10.30 am 11 May 1948 to 12.8 pm on 12 May. A fairly recent example was the former hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Mr. Golding, who spoke for more than 11 hours on the British Telecommunications Bill in 1982.
The Government of 1887 brought in a guillotine, because they became frustrated by the fact that legislation on Irish matters was continually held up. The record for a sitting of the House was on an Irish matter in 1881, when the House sat for 41½ hours continuously on the Protection of Personal Property (Ireland) Bill. Although we have not had so long a sitting recently, I recall that in the past year, we sat for about 29 hours on a private Bill and lost the following day's business.
Debates on timetable motions tend to be rather ritualistic.

Mr. Richard Holt: Just to get the record correct, the longest speech recently was made by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in the debate on fluoridation. His speech was longer than that of Mr. Golding.

Mr. Bennett: I do not think that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton spoke for about four hours, whereas Mr. Golding spoke for 11 hours in Committee. Our hon. and learned Friend did not speak for as long as that in the Chamber.

Mr. Holt: I believe that it was 14 hours.

Mr. Bennett: I am referring to debates in the Chamber.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is going through history and saying that long speeches are rare occurrences. Does he intend to do a repeat performance—if so, he should perhaps warn the House first—or is he merely saying that such events happened in the past?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is being a bit unfair. He spoke for 19 minutes, whereas I have been speaking for only three minutes. I was merely giving a little historical background to the debate, which would not come amiss.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, as always, managed to get the facts wrong, when he used them, and to get the arguments wrong, when he put any forward. He told us that the Government wanted a timetable motion today because a tube strike was due to take place, so the public would tie the two events together and rush to vote Conservative in the European elections on 15 June. He told us that the Government wanted a dock strike. He did not tell us how that could be the case, given that a national dock strike would damage the economy and would lead to imports being held up, only to flood in later. Our export potential would also be damaged.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There are reports in today's papers that the Government seek to defend the unprecedented balance of trade deficit while employers are stocking up ready for a dock strike.

Mr. Bennett: Any employer who employs dockers or who uses the ports would be foolish if he did not take account of the words of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the fact that the ballot is taking place now. That is merely to be far-sighted. It does riot mean that the Government wish to have a dock strike; it is the Opposition who want a dock strike. The Government have nothing to gain from a strike because it would have long-term adverse effects on our export potential.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on to talk about by-elections and, as usual, got his facts wrong. He said that the result in the Vale of Glamorgan last week was the best swing to the Labour party in more than 50 years, going back to the Liverpool, Toxteth by-election in 1935. The hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber now, has a short memory. If we look at the results in the past 20 years, at the Hayes and Harlington by-election in 1971, there was a 16·5 per cent. swing to Labour. In Southend, East in 1980, there was a 12·9 per cent. swing. In Brecon and Radnor, there was a 15 per cent. swing and Labour nearly won the seat, narrowly coming second to the Liberals. Only three years ago in Fulham, there was a swing of 10·9 per cent. It is not unexpected for a Government to do badly in mid-term by-elections and we know, as do the victors of Fulham and Ryedale by-elections in 1986, that winning a by-election is no long-term predictor of the next general election. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras could not get right a simple matter such as that.

Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will remember that, between 1976 and 1979, under the last Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was Leader of the House, introduced many guillotine motions. It is interesting to note that during that period, there were some spectacular Labour party losses, with


massive swings against them, especially in mining constituencies in the midlands, such as Ashfield, which was won by our hon. Friend the present Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right. When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he guillotined five Bills in a day. The Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill had guillotines introduced immediately after Second Reading. We need take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks to the House about liberty and freedom, because his record of introducing guillotines in one day is unmatched by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend care to remind the House of the swing in the Glasgow, Govan by-election?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There are several hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is short. I appeal for brief speeches and, even more, for hon. Members to keep to the subject on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bennett: I can resist the temptation to answer the question, although my hon. Friend knows that there was no swing to Labour in Glasgow, Govan.
Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill will have been pleased to hear our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House describe some of the agonies we suffered in Committee. We had to listen to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) speak for two hours, with 10 interruptions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who is not in the Chamber, was interrupted no fewer than nine times in just five minutes and was warned by the Chairman for tedious repetition.
As has been recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said:
the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West challenged him by saying that he had let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Gentleman said:
This Committee is rather like an educationally sub-normal class on constitutional law. The Opposition's only effective weapon is delay, which has to expand to counter the brutality of the Government's unacceptable tactics."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 216.]
We do not complain about the hon. Member for Great Grimsby speaking at great length. To have an audience of more than 10 after his second job, to which he has "bobbed off", to use a dockers' term, must be a great pleasure for him.
Opposition Members have asked why we need the Bill. I refer them to an editorial in The Times of 22 January 1988 about the
Dark ages in the Docks".
It said:
Some flavour of the rule book under which registered dockers work is provided by the injunction that dockwork shall exclude 'the loading of carts by horse drivers in the ports of Penzance, Hayle, Portreath, Porthleven and Newlyn' and references to work connected with 'sailing barges and other self-propelled vessels' in the port of Medway.
The leader in The Times concluded:

A Government which believes that adaptability and hard work are the best guarantee of prosperity and employment should have the courage to allow working practices in the docks to be brought into the 1980s.

Mr. Loyden: They would, wouldn't they?

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps a quotation from Tribune would be more to the taste of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). An editorial of 21 April said:
On so many major issues of economic and industrial policy where the Tories have made really radical proposals over the past decade, Labour has managed to appear to be caught on the hop. A good example is the docks. When did Labour last offer a creative thought about the docks industry that made any impact at all?
In case Tribune is too Left-wing for the hon. Member for Garston, I refer him to a pamphlet issued by the Labour party—admittedly in 1966. The report of Labour's port transport study group said:
The scheme has failed to bring full decasualisation any closer … The evidence we have heard has … been unanimous in questioning the value of the NDLB.
That was in 1966, so the Labour party recognised 23 years ago that there were things wrong with the scheme.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that although that document was produced 23 years ago, and although Labour Governments have been in power since, we still do not know what the Labour party would put in place of the national dock labour scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that, given 23 years and now a policy review, even the Labour party ought to be able to reach some sort of conclusion?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has a good point. We await the outcome of the policy review discussions that are taking place today and tomorrow. It is interesting to note that an exit poll in Vale of Glamorgan last week showed that only eight of the 250 people interviewed voted Labour because of the credibility of Labour policies. I suggest that, after the review documents have been analysed and debated, no one will vote for the Labour party on the basis of its policies.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked why the Bill had been introduced without consultation and so quickly and why there had been no discussion with the employers. We have all the evidence that we need that the Transport and General Workers Union is not prepared to discuss the dock labour scheme. For years, the union has said that there can be no debate on the scheme and that it cannot be amended. When challenged in the national joint council's executive committee on 19 March 1986, Mr. John Connolly is reported as saying that
he doubted … whether the employers wanted that kind of discussion, and suggested that they wished instead to talk about the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. He said that the trade union was not prepared to discuss the abolition of the Scheme.
We have many other quotes from Mr. Connolly. For example, on 12 November last year he said on Channel 4 that any attempt to amend or abolish the national dock scheme would be met with a national dock strike. How can the Government talk to people who will not even consider amending the scheme, let alone accept its abolition? The Opposition are wrong to say that the TGWU is willing to discuss amending the scheme.
In 1986, the director of the National Association of Port Employers wrote to Mr. John Connolly, at the


suggestion of the then Secretary of State, to propose that a meeting be held. Replying on 21 April 1986, Mr. Connolly said:
In reply to your letter of 6 April 1986, I can advise you that, having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I can see no point in having joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal.
We have it in black and white, in correspondence, speeches and television programmes: in the eyes of the TGWU, the scheme must remain. It is not true that the TGWU wants discussion and debate. It is not interested in getting rid of the scheme. It is up to Parliament to legislate for the end of the scheme.

Mr. George Galloway: Given the hon. Gentleman's grandparentage, I doubt whether I am alone in finding the degree to which he seems to welcome this move to do down the dockers pretty unseemly. In his ire against the dockers, however, will he not find time to remember that Mr. Connolly and Mr. Todd visited the National Association of Port Employers last month? They offered to negotiate new arrangements for the dockers in the scheme ports on the basis that the workers' conditions would be no less favourable than they are now. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as an unjustifiable bottom line for a trade union?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman knows that that discussion took place merely so that the trade union could seek to protect itself from any legal proceedings that might result if a strike were called. The simple fact is that the TGWU is having a political dispute with the Government. The employers are not directly concerned with the merits of the dock labour scheme, because they are not in charge of it. It was set up by legislation and only the Government and Parliament can dispose of it. There is no dispute with the employers about the dock labour scheme. The TGWU is trying to persuade the courts, therefore, that the dispute is with the National Association of Port Employers. The TGWU cannot even get away with that, because dockers are employed by individual port employers and not by the National Association of Port Employers. The members of the trade union and Opposition Members in Committee are not interested in getting rid of the scheme; they merely want to replace it with another scheme that is equally restrictive and damaging to our export possibilities.

Mr. Tim Janman: At the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), the employers made it clear that, once the scheme has been abolished, they will be employing people who have been in the scheme on exactly the same basis and with exactly the same terms and conditions as their employees who have never been in the scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is perfectly justifiable and morally acceptable?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the dockers should be treated differently in law from any other group of workers or why they should have the restrictive practices and protection that they have at present. With the increase in Britain's export potential and the strengthening of the economy, there is no doubt that plenty of jobs will be available in the docks in the coming years. We merely wish to remove this

ridiculous scheme, which is holding up the redevelopment of inner-city areas and clamping down on dock development.
It is interesting to examine the question asked by the Transport and General Workers Union of the registered dock workers this week. The ballot paper is headed:
Trade dispute with your employer"—
that brings me back to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) —
including all matters arising out of and in consequence of that dispute".
The question is:
Are you prepared to take part in a strike?
and the dock workers are asked to answer yes or no. The ballot paper does not tell the registered dock workers what the dispute is. This must be the first secret ballot in which the question itself has been kept secret. It is extraordinary that the trade union is not prepared to include in the ballot paper the nature of the dispute. It has done that because it knows that there is no trade dispute with the employers, that it is a dispute with the Government, who are introducing a Bill to get rid of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has a long record of making speeches about the dock work scheme and the strike. The hon. Gentleman challenged remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West about quotations from speeches that he may or may not have made on the radio, and I accept what he said about that. It turns out that it may have been the Leader of the Opposition who was speaking. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said on Radio Lancashire news on 10 April this year, in answer to the question whether there would be a dock strike:
frankly we have no alternative but to support, if there were a strike.
The views of the hon. Member for Oldham, West are clearly on record. It is the Labour party that wants a strike, not the Government.
I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) notice that I would mention his comments earlier in the debate, although I understand that he has now gone to meet the President of Nicaragua. The hon. Member may have a good time when he is there. He talked about Tory Members having dinners with the port employers. That is very interesting, but I have a list of dinners that Labour Members have had with the port employers.
At the National Association of Port Employers reception at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 15 December last, the hon. Member for Garston was taking the entertainment of NAPE. The hon. Members for Great Grimsby, for Liverpool, West Derby, for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) were also invited. They accepted, but, unfortunately, did not turn up. Other hon. Members attended, but they did not sign the visitors' book. In June 1988, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North had lunch with the port employers. On 2 March, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was at the Mayfair hotel to discuss the dock labour scheme. On 7 March, the hon. Member for Oldham, West had a meeting at the House of Commons with the National Association of Port Employers about it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had two lunches with NAPE in July 1988 and in Jaunary 1989.
Opposition Members not only have lunch with the Transport and General Workers Union but are busy lunching off the National Association of Port Employers.


The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should be careful when he talks about people who lunch, as though it were some way of getting into hock with employers, when Labour Members on the Committee appear to dine more frequently with port employers than Conservative Members might.
The real reason we are getting rid of the scheme is that it is totally indefensible. When one looks at the examples of ports where registered dock work schemes are in use, time and again, one finds that ghosting takes place. For those hon. Members who are not on the Dock Work Bill Committee, I should explain that ghosting occurs when a registered dock worker stands by while another man does the job and they both get paid for doing it, thus doubling the cost of the work. It is specially prevalent in the constituency of the hon. Member for Garston. There are plenty of examples. It takes place in Liverpool, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Bristol and Newport. Wherever one looks one sees examples of ghosting. It occurs on the Medway and in Hunterston.
There is a good example in Grangemouth, which shows why the Bill is necessary. The docks in Grangemouth have been fully automated and require no docker involvement. However, dockers in the port insisted that a ghost docker must be in attendance while unloading takes place. Recognising that there was absolutely no work for that docker to do during the operation, the men demanded that he be provided with a Portakabin fitted with a colour television and a microwave oven. That was so that he might "overcome boredom". The prospective employer did not enter into the contract, and lucrative business was lost to the port.
That sort of behaviour goes on in ports which are under the registered dock work scheme. Not only is ghosting taking place; there is also "bobbing". A registered dock employee signs on and "bobs off' to another job, perhaps running a pub or taxi driving.

Mr. Galloway: What about Tory Members?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman shouts about Tory Members not being present. I will tell the hon. Gentleman about Labour Members on the Committee and their voting records. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West had a 60 per cent. voting record in the House last year. He was 324th in the league. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) came 480th in the league, with a 51 per cent. record. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) had a 59·7 per cent. record, and he came 339th. Who came top of the league? Tory Members. I came 19th in that league. I do not take lectures from the hon. Member for Hillhead. He is the part-timer in the House when it comes to attending debates and taking part. We will look at his voting record, too, if he wishes.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) does not take part in debates is that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) filibusters for so long that it prevents him from doing so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In the past 10 minutes, I have already appealed to the House for short speeches. There

are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served on the Committee and are seeking to speak. I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the part-time hon. Member for Hillhead, who spends most of his time bobbing around on trips abroad. He should not lecture us about the people who do the work in this House.
It is worth while to point out why the scheme must go. For years, the national dock labour scheme has ruined opportunities for expanding our ports in inner-city areas. If we examine the record of Felixstowe, which is outside the scheme, contrast it with Ipswich and look at dock labour schemes on both the east and west coasts and compare them with non-scheme ports, we will see the improvements in productivity and trade in non-scheme ports. In 1970, dock scheme ports accounted for 90 per cent. of non-fuel imports into and exports from this country. They now account for 70 per cent. Non-scheme ports are improving their productivity and the amount of trade that they take. They are taking on more workers, but, on their own, they cannot take the full burden of the national economic expansion that is taking place.
We need to make sure that scheme ports are able to operate without restrictive practices—without overmanning—and that they can operate in such a way that they can improve their facilities and compete with continental ports. With 1992 approaching and with the need to make management decisions today and not in 1992, it is right that we should abolish restrictive practices and ensure that our ports and docks have an opportunity to expand to meet the challenge of an expanding economy.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: If the House were looking for a good example of how to waste 25 minutes of parliamentary time discussing a guillotine motion, it could not find a better example than the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He talked about everything under the sun, such as who had lunch and who had dinner with the port employers. It is with some sadness that I tell him that nobody invited me to lunch or dinner. I am always in the market for a good meal and a good discussion.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I will not give way. I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a good example of spirited irrelevance.
I have a rather questionable right to take part in the debate, and I do so only because my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is prohibited by adverse weather conditions from getting out of his constituency. He would have been in his place as Chief Whip of the Social and Liberal Democrats. His absence puts me in a good position. I am spared the worst excesses of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His speeches are always long and arduous, but I find them entertaining. That is a saving grace. The debate gives me the opportunity to look at the terms of the guillotine motion in an objective manner.
Although, as a party, my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to defend the continuation of the dock labour scheme, by no stretch of the imagination does it mean that


we are prepared to abandon dockers. Important matters must be resolved and guarantees must be secured before we would be prepared to allow a return to the casual system of dock labour. The Government must give some important guarantees in Committee.
Although, on balance, I favour the terms of the legislation, my hon. Friends and I cannot support the introduction of the guillotine at this time. There are two matters before the House. First, I refer to the use of guillotines in the first instance. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right: there is a worrying trend in the frequency with which the House resorts to guillotine motions. The hon. Gentleman said that the House had resorted to 11 guillotines in his time in the House. That is a serious matter. Of course I understand that Governments need to get legislation through. Of course I understand that, on previous occasions when Governments have survived by wafer-thin majorities, there are circumstances in which guillotines are necessary. Of course guillotines may have to be imposed when important constitutional questions are involved. But the Government have no impediment in terms of a lack of majority, nor are they troubled by any restraints on parliamentary time this year. As someone who is an objective observer and not a member of the Standing Committee, I advise the Leader of the House that I do not think that he made a case for bringing forward a guillotine after only 29 hours in Standing Committee.
It was admitted earlier that this is essentially a one-clause Bill and if it is, I do not see any danger in having a later guillotine. If the Government had come to the House much further into the Committee's proceedings, they would have found, at least on this Bench, a more willing acceptance of the need to resort to the guillotine. However, in our present position and looking at the special character of this legislation, which I fully understand is party politically contentious—that is obvious to anyone who considers the issue for longer than a second—why have the Government decided to timetable the Standing Committee so soon? We have not had an effective answer to that question and until we do, the House should consider rejecting the motion.
I go further, and say that there are special circumstances with this Bill which make the Government's position even more untenable than the purely constitutional case of the number of hours that the Standing Committee has been able to deliberate on the Bill in detail. The way in which the White Paper and the Bill were suddenly introduced out of the blue bears heavily with me when trying to decide how to vote on the timetable motion.
If one listens to what Conservative Back Benchers have said this afternoon, one realises that they are not interested in any legislative scrutiny. They have said that as there is no prospect of changing the Bill, we should introduce the law straight away, never mind any parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, that is the way in which the Government are operating more and more. Parliament has been swept aside time after time on contentious issues, despite the Government having a majority in excess of 100.
Special circumstances are involved because of the way in which the Bill was introduced and the transition from the Government saying that there was no need for reform, to the White Paper being introduced on one day, with the Bill on the next, and the guillotine being introduced just one month and 29 hours in Committee after the Bill was published. That is a scandalous timetable for any

Government, even for one with a wafer-thin majority, but especially so for one that is dealing with such a finely tested constitutional issue.
The Government have not proved their case. Indeed, from a political point of view, it is inept to bring forward a guillotine this early because it is bound to exacerbate the present delicate state of industrial relations. It will not make anybody's job any easier. It would have been perfectly proper and, indeed, statesmanlike for the Secretary of State for Employment to say, "We will run the Standing Committee slowly. We will take time and allow hon. Members of all parties to table new clauses at the end of our Committee proceedings." However, the Government are bringing forward a timetable motion just 29 hours into the Committee's deliberations. That is a scandalous abuse of procedure.
This is an important Bill and we are anxious to see removed from the statute book what we regard as continuing restrictive practices. However, we do not want to return to the bad old days of casual labour. We need some assurances from the Government and a Government strategy for the ports, not just a return to free markets. We need assurances that go far further than those that we have been able to get to date in the Standing Committee about the need for training and retraining. Above all, we need more time in the Standing Committee to cross-examine the Government, to scrutinise their programmes and to test their plans for the future of the docks industry, which is important to the future of this country.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this guillotine debate and must declare an interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) because I, too, have lunched with the port employers.
The guillotine motion is important. Many Conservative members of the Committee have not taken part in the Committee. We have listened and have said nothing on occasions, and we have heard nothing to make us change our minds during the 29 hours that the Bill has been debated. After 29 hours, we have not got beyond clause I stand part because the Opposition—I acquit the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of this charge, because like us he has sat and listened and has not said a great deal—have attempted to replace the dock labour scheme, which the Bill clearly attempts to abolish, with a different scheme. In effect, it would be "son of the dock labour scheme". That idea has been put forward cleverly by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friends, who want to build a new scheme under an entirely different name. We have listened, we have seen that for what it is and we have voted against it time and time again. We have not accepted that any of the arguments have any credence.
Some Opposition Members have spoken at great length in Committee. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke for two and a half hours. Much of his speech was an attack on the Government and on Conservative Members, couched in abusive terms. Four of the Opposition members of the Committee are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. The view that I have formed—I am probably not alone in this on the Government side of the Committee—is that they are earning their sponsorship


money by fighting Ron Todd's war—the war of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union—in Committee. They have been dangling like puppets on a string and dancing to his tune.
I can quote the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who is not in his place, when he told us during one of his long interventions—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is in the House.

Mr. Hind: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told us that he viewed the role of the Labour party in Parliament as that of the political arm of the trade union movement and said that that is how he acts. Like Nelson when he put the eyeglass to his blind eye and said, "I see no ships," that is the way in which the Labour party has continued the debate in Committee. Indeed, it could be said that the problem of the dock labour scheme is that, unfortunately, not enough ships are seen in dock labour scheme ports. That is why it was necessary to introduce the Dock Work Bill, which I commend to the House.
In Committee, the Opposition have totally failed to address the major issue that the Bill attacks. In the past, the dock labour scheme has clearly deterred investment because companies will not invest in ports covered by the scheme. That has deprived inner cities of investment in thousands of acres of derelict land in cities such as London, Glasgow and Liverpool, which is on the edge of my constituency. For that reason above all, it has been necessary to introduce the Bill. Employment in scheme ports has contracted, but that point was not addressed by the Opposition in Committee. Trade in scheme ports has declined and the number of registered dock workers has fallen.
In contrast, we have seen the growth in non-dock labour scheme ports that at one time did not exist. They have grown only because of the existence of the dock labour scheme. Non-scheme ports that handled little or no cargo in the 1940s, such as Felixstowe, have adapted, prospered and expanded; they show how modern, well-managed ports can use technology to secure prosperous and well-paid employment. I am afraid that that is in marked contrast to what has happened in dock labour scheme ports.
One point that Conservative Members have tried to address in Committee—the Opposition have totally failed to address this—is that the contract of employment in scheme ports must be the only contract of employment known to English and Scottish law that contains a criminal sanction if the employer employs somebody who is not a registered dock worker, or whatever the scheme implies. Such criminal sanctions are nonsense in this sort of society.
The second point not addressed by the Opposition is the question of jobs for life. In Committee, the Opposition tried to suggest that doctors, lawyers and other people in our society have jobs for life. Although those people can all be made redundant from their jobs, under the dock labour scheme, redundancies to reduce the work force are impossible. When the dock labour scheme is abolished,

dockers in scheme ports will find that their terms and conditions will be the same as those for the rest of the working population, which cannot be a bad thing.
It is important to note some of the abuses within the dock labour scheme—for example, ghosting and bobbing. There are examples in Garston and also in Liverpool, where three registered dock workers must be employed each day between Monday and Friday for the reception of scrap on to the quay prior to loading. Those men are ghosts. They play no part in the operation. If the ships are bigger, upwards of 16 ghosts can be employed there. They must he employed by the employers.
Recently in Liverpool, T. and J. Harrison and Bulk Cargo Handling Services were closed. The local employers, who already employed far more labour than they needed, refused the local board's request to take on workers who had been laid off. The unions on the board threatened an immediate local strike, with the possibility of a national strike, if the local employers did not reconsider their decision or if there was any move to place the men on the total unattached register.

Mr. Pat Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: I apologise, but I shall not give way.
Liverpool, like many other dock labour scheme ports, has been crucified by this ridiculous scheme. There was no possibility of any meaningful discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union about this scheme. The section convenor, Mr. Connolly, said that there would be no discussion about it. He was supported by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has been quoted in the Morning Star and many of the Left-wing journals as saying that, effectively, the Labour party will support the union, as one would naturally expect the Labour party to stand by unions should they find themselves in difficulty over the operation of the dock labour scheme. As recently as the end of March, he is quoted in the Lancashire News as saying that that is what will happen. That is what we expect.
We have no intention on this side of the House of forcing a strike. We do not want to force a strike. It is interesting to note that we have seen on the television a combination of Mr. Connolly and the hon. Member for Oldham, West sitting together discussing the matter. Is it not peculiar that there has been no strike during the period of the local government elections? Should we draw the conclusion that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that the Labour party is nothing more than the political wing of the trade union movement?
It is clear that, if dockers consider what we are trying to do, they will realise that there is no need for any strike and that the reason the Bill is going through as quickly as possible is that the Government are interested in protecting the national interest. We would be foolish to stand by like Caligula feasting while Rome burns. We on this side of the House and Conservative Members on the Committee have no intention of doing that. I regard the guillotine motion as essential. I hope that the entire House will join me in the Lobby to support it.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on a number of occasions referred to Liverpool. I remind the House that those slogans, which are thrust about day by day by Conservative Members, are a thinly disguised way of hiding the real reasons for the Government wanting the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Ghosting and bobbing were practices that came about with the co-operation of the employers, because when ships were loading or discharging the employers demanded that the derricks were working and the hook was moving for the entire period for which that vessel was being loaded or discharged. The intense labour involved in loading and discharging vessels of cargoes, such as hides, beef and chemical cargoes, required men to take breaks from time to time. That system meant that the employer was maximising his labour to the absolute. The welting that went on in those days was necessary so that people could maintain the levels of production that the employer demanded.
It has been clear from the outset that the real reason for the Government wanting to abolish the national dock labour scheme—with the co-operation and collusion of employers who for the past 30 years have wanted to abolish it—is that they detest the trade union movement and the rights that workers have won through negotiations with the industries to which they belong. It is absurd for the party of privilege to refer to the dockers as privileged people. The Conservative party demands the retention of its power and privilege over the masses in this country; it has done so from the dawn of political history. Conservative Members should be the last to refer to dockers as privileged people and to raise that red or blue herring.
It is clear that the Bill is being railroaded through by the Government to remove as quickly as possible from the statute book all the present conditions in the dock industry. However, they have suggested nothing to put in their place.
I went on the Committee reluctantly. I believed that it was ritualistic to go on the Committee, because of the present Tory majority and its determination to abolish the scheme. No answers were given to questions raised by other members of the Committee. The Government now see fit to guillotine the Bill. One can argue that, in those circumstances, that Committee could be seen as a jury as appointed after the death sentence had been passed. The Secretary of State then hastily arranged for the execution by bringing in the guillotine.
Hon. Members talk of delay on clause 1, but clause 1 is in fact the Bill. The seven clauses that follow are consequential. Clause I abolishes the scheme. If clause 1 is the Bill, it is reasonable and proper that those Opposition Members who are opposing it should be given, first, the greatest opportunity to examine and probe the Government on the issues and, secondly, to discover what the Government intend to do about replacing the existing conditions as they apply to training, welfare, discipline and such other matters as are governed by the national dock labour scheme. So far, we have not been told.
Conservative Members have said that they are not prepared to respond to the suggestions of the Opposition on any matters. They have turned deaf ears to the forthright suggestions put to them, such as that a key

industry cannot be left in a void. The docks are a key industry, and it appears that the Government are dealing with them in a cavalier fashion. Both in peace and war, the industry has played a key part in the creation of wealth in Britain. Indeed, when the second world war started, the main concern of Winston Churchill and Ernie Bevin was what would happen to the docks. Because of the pre-war conditions, the docks were in turmoil and chaos, and that situation continued into the post-war period. The state had to intervene to ensure that the ports were secure and that there was an understanding of the agreements under which the men were working. They made a major contribution to the war effort, and that was understood at that time.
I wonder what would happen in the unhappy event of a similar situation arising in the not-too-distant future. Would the Government leave the docks in the position that they will be in after the abolition of the scheme? Of course not. They would ensure that a similar scheme, if not the scheme itself, was in place to see that the whole of the docks industry was influenced by these disciplines.
There is no doubt in the minds of those serving on the Committee that the Government have not been prepared to listen to any of the arguments advanced about what will happen after the abolition of the scheme; nor have they shown any sign that they are worried about what will happen. It is obvious that the Government have been absolutely doctrinaire and dogmatic in taking this decision, which is why they will not move on the issue.
It is the height of hypocrisy by those who have spoken today to say that the number of hours spent on the Bill so far is an abuse of parliamentary democracy and Committee procedures. In all probability there is no precedent for a Bill being guillotined as this one will be. One can only put it down to the fact that the Government do not want to hear the case or listen to the questions being asked about the docks industry, the scheme ports and what will happen to them after the scheme is abolished.
There is utter confusion among dock workers about the outcome of the Bill and what will happen to their industry. Already, dock workers are leaving the industry en masse. This direct interference, based on pure political dogma, will create great difficulties in the port transport industry.
It has been evident from today's debate that Tory Members intend to get this legislation on the statute book without paying full regard to what is happening in the industry. To them, the scheme is the last bastion of trade union influence in this industry. They have made relentless attacks on the trade union movement since 1979 and they see this as the culmination of their attempts to take away the influence and power of trade unionism in the industry.
This is not the first or second time that attempts have been made to damage trade unionism. They go back to its birth, but it has survived and it will survive. The trade union movement will see through the Government as the public are now seeing through them. In the past four months we have seen ever greater criticisms of the Government's vindictiveness and inability or lack of desire to listen to anybody. Other sections of industry are becoming aware of what is going on.
There can be no justification whatever for the Government's actions. We should see the fullest possible debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House so that the Government answer our questions and the industry is not left in the mess in which they intend to leave it.

Mr. Tim Janman: Before I say why it is in the interests of my constituents to have this simple legislation passed as quickly as possible, I shall make a couple of points to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Janman: No, we are short of time.
In the mid and late 1970s, the Liberal party supported guillotine motions introduced by the Labour Government. I remind the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that, during a debate on procedure in February 1986, his party voted for the guillotine to be applied to all Bills which spent more than 25 hours in Committee. I will give way to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) now, if he wishes.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the abolition of the dock labour scheme appeals to his electors, why, last Thursday in the county council elections in Thurrock, did the Labour party win 56 per cent. and the Tory party 35 per cent. of the vote?

Mr. Janman: I shall bring two points to the hon. Gentleman's attention. First, in the ward of Tilbury and South Grays, the turnout dropped to 21 per cent. The Labour party had a much lower vote than it would normally expect. That was mainly due to the opposition of the Tilbury Labour party to the Royal Navy coming to the civil port of Tilbury. Many loyal Labour voters in that part of my constituency are beginning seriously to reconsider whether to continue voting for the Labour party.
Secondly, in 1981 the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock and the Conservatives won the 1983 general election. In 1985, the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock, and we went on to win the 1987 general election. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, in 1989, the Conservatives gained a seat from the Labour party in the borough of Thurrock. Two thirds of the ward is in my constituency. We had an excellent turnout of our supporters and we gained a seat in the borough which has helped to re-establish overall Conservative control in Essex. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour party doing worse in the 1989 county elections in my constituency is pertinent to its doing better in the next general election than in the past two, I am at a complete loss to understand how he can justify his logic and analysis.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can get back to the motion.

Mr. Janman: I shall save the hon. Gentleman further embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker; that would be a good idea.
Since the proposed abolition of the scheme, a large number of companies have already started to contact the chief executive of the port of Tilbury and are showing great interest in coming to Tilbury to carry out many different types of process work. They have long been prevented from coming to Tilbury because of the dock labour scheme. It is extremely frustrating that the Opposition are filibustering on the Bill and making

inordinately long and tedious speeches, because every day that the Bill is delayed, masses of new jobs that will be created in my constituency are being further delayed.
Opposition Members have said that it has taken the Government 10 years to introduce the Bill. I remind them that it has taken the Labour party 10 years to produce its policy review. Once the scheme is abolished and it is clear that the dock industry is free of it, the results will be much more positive for the docks, although it has taken us 10 years to introduce the Bill, than the results of the Labour party policy review, although it too has taken 10 years to produce.
This is only an eight-clause Bill. The Committee has been sitting for 29 hours. Even of one subtracts the small amount of time that we have taken off for bio-breaks and something to eat, we have been debating the Bill for 27 hours 33 minutes. That means that an average of more than three hours has been spent on each clause.
As I said, in terms of parliamentary perspective, the Bill is simple and short, and there is certainly no need for it to stay in Committee any longer than 1 pm on 18 May. It seems perfectly reasonable and justifiable to bring debate to a close in that period. We will have plenty of time in which to debate all eight clauses fully, to examine the Bill in detail and for the Committee to report back to the House. I am pleased to be able to support the Government's timetable motion.

Mr. Michael Meacher: It is good to listen to a valedictory from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman); the county council elections last week showed that he is firmly headed for oblivion.
It is customary for Oppositions, whose job it is to oppose, to condemn the use of the guillotine as an unwarranted restriction on parliamentary debate. However, I submit to the House that on this occasion, the violation of parliamentary prerogative is out of all proportion to previous use of this procedure.
My research discloses that the Government have guillotined at least 25 Bills in the past 10 years. Excluding Bills debated in Committee of the whole House, which are special, the average time a Bill spent in Committee before the guillotine was used was no less than 83 hours. That time ranges between 115 hours and 44 hours. The number of Committee hours spent on the Dock Work Bill, as the Leader of the House said, was 29 hours, which is scarcely more than one third of the previous average during the past 10 years. That is why the Opposition are so angry. We do not want to make a merely ritualistic demand but, as the Leader of the House was forced to admit, the Government have set a new precedent, for which there are good reasons.
As far as I can discover, there is no precedent for anywhere near so brief a Committee stage before the imposition of a guillotine. The Government have been forced into using artificial devices to bring the number of hours even to 29. We are entitled to ask why the Government, having clearly decided by the beginning of last week to impose a guillotine, forced the Committee and my hon. Friends to sit into the night last Tuesday until 4.5 am on Wednesday, as Hansard records. Having already decided to use the guillotine, why was there a sittings motion on that day alone of almost 12 hours? There is a pretty obvious answer to that question.
The Government clearly wanted to provide a figleaf, however threadbare, for the guillotine that they had already decided to impose. That is not their first abuse of Parliament during the passage of the Bill. The Government have treated the House with contempt at every stage of the handling of the Bill. They produced a White Paper without any consultation and contrary to repeated assurances that we had from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so strongly pointed out in a passage to which he did not receive a reply. The Bill was published the very next day. The Second Reading debate was held on the first permitted day thereafter. The Bill was sent to Committee after only eight days, instead of the usual fortnight, and an afternoon sittings motion was moved by the Minister immediately at the start of the first day in Committee, which is, I believe, without precedent for so short a Bill. Now, to cap it all, a guillotine has been imposed after the Bill has been in Committee for a uniquely brief time. After such a catalogue, all I can say is that the longer the Government are in office, the more arrogant they become day by day.
The indecent haste that the Government have displayed over this Bill can be illustrated by comparison with their treatment of their Pilotage Bill which began its journey through the House five years ago. It was not dissimilar to the Dock Work Bill. It involved 1,300 marine pilots and deregulated pilotage. A Green Paper was produced in 1984 and a White Paper in 1985. The Bill went through Parliament in 1986 and 1987 and a day was appointed for its implementation on 1 October 1988. Therefore, we are entitled to ask why the Government allowed four years for the Pilotage Bill but insistently demand that the Dock Work Bill should be in Committee for only four weeks. That is a relevant question, to which we have never received an answer.
I shall suggest an answer. The reason for the Government railroading the Bill headlong through the House with an arrogant contempt for Parliament—an arrogance matched only by the contempt for the Government shown by the electorate last week—was made clear by the Tory newspaper which sometimes has access to inside information, The Daily Telegraph. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman reads that newspaper, and he may have react the issue of 13 April in which it said:
Dock employers who use outside workers to break a strike against the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme could risk court action and possibly jail, it emerged last night. Ministers have been alerted to a legal trap facing employers wishing to keep the 40 scheme ports running.
Until the Bill scrapping the 52-year-old scheme is on the statute book later this year, it will remain illegal to employ non-registered dockers in ports maintained by the Dock Labour Boards.
At present, if an employer taken on non-registered workers without the approval of the local Dock Labour Board he is liable to prosecution and imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine or both.
The threat of legal action … is likely to dissuade employers from bringing in non-registered workers.
This is the point:
It has also convinced Ministers that the Bill should go through Parliament swiftly.
There we have it. The guillotine has nothing to do with parliamentary niceties.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is a scandal.

Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who has just bowled in in his customary fashion, thinks that it

is a scandal; so do we, but for more serious reasons. The guillotine has nothing to do with the niceties of Parliament, about which the Government care not a fig. The Bill is being driven through the House at unprecedented speed because it is a strike-breaking measure in the event of a strike. That is the real, unspoken reason why the Government are ready to breach all previous parliamentary rules and why they turned the Committee stage into such a farce, in which amendments were not even being seriously considered.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman used that extract in Committee, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse the Government of trying to engineer a strike and at the same time engineering a method of overcoming a strike if it happens. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify his position?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is extremely naive if he thinks that the Government are incapable of doing both. Many people are suspicious that they are doing just that. The Government have adopted a cynical posture. The Secretary of State says, for public consumption, that the Government will not become involved in the current trade dispute, and that negotiation is purely a matter for the local employers. However, at the same time, behind the scenes, the Government break every rule in the parliamentary book in order to abolish the scheme as fast as possible to hand the employers the most potent strike-breaking weapon to use if industrial action occurs.
The trouble with the Government is that they are far more interested in precipitating a strike and then making political capital out of it, as a distraction from their mounting economic and political difficulties, than they are in trying to prevent a strike in the first place. They are uniquely in a position to prevent one if they choose to make a real effort to do so. That is why the Secretary of State keeps intoning in committee that the abolition of the scheme is a matter for the Government and that the role of Parliament must not be usurped, yet he refuses point blank, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Biaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) so eloquently pointed out, to negotiate on what might follow the scheme, saying that that is a matter for the employers. When the Transport and General Workers union tries to negotiate with the employers, it is told that this is all a political matter for the Government. If the Government would only put half the energy into negotiating to prevent a strike that they are putting into provoking one by adamantly refusing to negotiate, Britain could be saved a dangerous, lengthy and damaging strike which no one except the Government wants.
The Secretary of State's assurances do not carry much credibility when he forecasts a smooth transition to local collective bargaining in which employers will respect employee rights and local trade union bargaining. That was the story that the Minister repeatedly put across in Committee. A letter from one local employer sent out on 27 April from Mersey Container Terminals Ltd. gives the lie to these claims by the right hon. Gentleman:
If after a ballot has been held and by a majority of strikers called some of the men go on strike and some stay in work those men on strike would be dismissed for breach of contract … if once again a strike has been called and all men go on strike they will all be dismissed for breach of contract.


That lets the cat out of the bag. It means that, under the new regime, there will be no right to strike or to withdraw labour. So much for the preservation of basic employee rights.
This same employer goes on to set out an 18-item employment contract which each worker is required to sign and return to the employer. So in future, there will be no collective bargaining—so much for all the smooth talk about a natural return to normal trade union bargaining rights. This shows clearly what abolition of the dock labour scheme is all about.
Abolition is not about efficiency. A recent study states:
A crude measure of efficiency, the tonnage moved per docker per year, reveals an even result between both scheme and non-scheme ports. For 1987, the last year that complete figures were available, each scheme docker moved 13,346 tonnes of cargo, compared with 13,655 per docker in non-port schemes".
So by that efficiency measure, there is no difference between scheme and non-scheme ports.
Abolition is not about productivity. The scheme ports have had a productivity gain of no less than 720 per cent. over the past 20 years. That is an indisputable fact, and it is a record almost unmatched in British industry.
Abolition is not even about profits. Associated British Ports, the largest port employer, returned profits last year 22 per cent. up—£46 million; its dividends were up by 33 per cent. and the chairman's salary went up a miserable 22 per cent. to a mere L119,000 per year. Abolition is all about power, the ending of joint determination, and the reassertion of the unilateral prerogative of the employers to hire and fire at will.
I end by quoting the words of a Tilbury docker, who expresses this much more clearly than anyone here could:
The say we have in our industry is the say that every working man should have in his industry. We have it and they are trying to take it away from us. Doing away with the scheme has nothing to do with port efficiency. It is purely political. Under the national dock labour scheme we have an input into how our industry is run, something that is totally foreign to this current Government's way of thinking. No working man should have a say in how his industry is run—that is what they think and that is really what it is all about. It has got nothing to do with efficiency; it is all to do with dogma.
It is because this Bill is about political dogma, not economic efficiency, and about strike breaking, not the national interest, that we utterly reject this unprecedented, partisan and self-serving use of the guillotine.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): It must be pointed out first that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) said, after 30 hours debate in Committee we are only part way through clause 1. At that rate of progress we shall be in Committee until 1990. This motion will make it possible to hold a further 30 hours of debate, making a total of 60 hours for an eight-clause Bill.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) incorrectly referred to a lack of precedents. There are precedents, and I think he knows them—

Mr. Meacher: Name one.

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House named two: the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1946–47 was introduced by a Labour Government, and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill of 1979–80 was introduced by this Government.
The flavour of the Committee proceedings can be sampled by reflecting on the conduct of the Opposition whip. Whips are traditionally the silent men of Westminster. In this case, the Opposition Whip has been warned nine times from the Chair for tedious repetition.
There have been lengthy contributions by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Looking around the Committee Room, he said how nice it was, after Sky Television, to have such a big audience. I do not object to that. The trouble is that it went entirely to his head and led to a speech of more than two hours.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend will allow me, no.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has frankly admitted that his intention has been to delay. I am not saying that we have not learnt from the Opposition in Committee. Sometimes we have not learnt much about the dock labour scheme, but we have learnt about a whole range of other matters—the after-hours activities of television crews visiting Rotterdam, the printing of Chiang Kai Shek's banknotes, employee relations in the Japanese mushroom-growing industry and the frustrated ambitions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
To this gallery we have now added the shadow Leader of the House, who predicts that there will be a return to casual work. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's predictions about transport before. When I denationalised the National Freight Corporation, he predicted that no one would want the shares, and certainly not people working for the company. That became the most famous employee shareholding scheme of all time. The hon. Gentleman's predictions have about as much authority as those of the weathermen before the great storm of 1987.

Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident that there will be no return to casual working, why will he not insist that the employers guarantee that in negotiations with the union? Why will he not give the assurance statutory backing so that, if the employers turn out to be lying, a law will be in place to offer dockers the protection they ask for?

Mr. Fowler: We are moving away from a statutory scheme. I should have thought that virtually every commentator in this country accepts that the undertakings given by the employers about no return to casualism take the position a great deal further than it has ever been before. The Opposition should accept that, too.

Mr. Meacher: If that is the case, why was it that in 1970, when employers gave exactly the same commitment, within 18 months we were back to casualisation in quite a major fashion?

Mr. Fowler: Opposition Members need only look at the position in the non-scheme ports—there is no need to look into the crystal ball—where trade and employment have increased and there has been no return to casual labour. It is about time that Labour Members accepted that.
The suggestion of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, that we had planned the debate for today because there might be a tube strike must rank as one of the silliest suggestions ever heard in the House, even from the current occupants of the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) raised a number of points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said, we need not be prepared to take lectures from him, considering that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day.
The right hon. Gentleman particularly asked about the view of Lord Aldington. We have that on record, in response to the statement made in the other place. The noble Lord said at that stage that he was wholly in agreement with the line that had been announced. In short — I paraphrase his remarks—he said that he was delighted that a scheme based on entirely different conditions, not there today, which involved damaging casual labour, not there today, would be ended and that all the ports would be put on level pegging. That position of the noble Lord adds authority and support to the case that we are putting.
Several hon. Members referred to the position of people in the industry from the point of view of consultation. The positions of those involved have been irreconcilable. The Transport and General Workers Union has stated repeatedly its attachment to the fundamentals of the scheme and has regularly threatened national strikes in the event of any suggestion that the scheme's damaging restrictions should be reduced. The union has refused five approaches from the employers to consider voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme.
When the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, invited the unions and employers to discuss voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme in 1986, the national secretary of the TGWU docks group, Mr. Connolly, replied:
Having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal.
In 1987 he repeated that by saying:
The policy of the Docks and Waterways Group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or revision of the scheme, and that opposition will take the form of a national docks strike.
It is significant, that in the debate in Committee and indeed in the debate outside, little attempt has been made to defend the dock labour scheme. When it has been defended, that has been done on arguments that applied to a position 40 or 50 years ago. The debate is now establishing that, in the context of the 1980s and 1990s, the dock labour scheme cannot be defended.
It is impossible to defend a statutory monopoly which makes it a criminal offence to employ other than registered dock workers in many of the ports of this country. It is impossible to defend a scheme which acts as a disincentive to investment, not only in scheme ports but in the areas around the ports. It is impossible to defend a scheme which, in spite of all its restrictions and regulations, has seen employment fall and trade disappear to non-scheme ports and to ports on the continent.
In the final analysis, the dock labour scheme is against the interests of the ports, against the interests of the areas adjoining the ports and against the interests of those

working in the ports industry. In particular this is the case when the employers have given the clearest assurances that there will be no return to casual working.
The Government put the case for the Bill in the White Paper and in the Second Reading debate, when abolition had a majority of over 100. The time has come for decision. Prevarication and delay can be in nobody's interest. In particular it can be in nobody's interest when registered dockers are being balloted on strike action. Against that background also, there can be no case for uncertainty about what Parliament intends.
Whatever may be the view of the Opposition on strike action—we still await a statement from the hon. Member for Oldham, West on industrial action and his response to it—we do not believe that a strike can be justified. A strike can only harm the scheme ports and ultimately the work force taking the action. More than that, it cannot be justified because the right place for the decision to be taken on a statutory scheme is in Parliament. That is particularly the case remembering that the hon. Member for Oldham, West put forward in Committee the case for a new statutory dock labour scheme. He made the position of the Opposition clear when he said twice in Committee:
we believe in a regulated dock work industry rather than moving towards either national or local collective bargaining."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1989; c. 40.]
Thus, the Labour party is committed to a new statutory dock labour scheme. In those circumstances, a strike would be entirely unjustified. Whether there should be a statutory scheme should be decided by Parliament, not on the picket line.
We look forward to that political debate. It will be important because, according to amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, he wants not just a new statutory scheme but a scheme which includes provisions from the 1976 legislation and which were rejected by the House when the Labour party was in office.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would be to extend the scheme to new occupations such as warehousing, packing and unpacking containers, and to new areas within half a mile of any harbour area. So the hon. Gentleman, not content with taking us back to the 1970s in industrial relations, arid not content with his plans to legalise the secondary picket, now plans to go back to the mid-1970s for his dock work scheme.
We believe that the case for abolition is overwhelming. Whatever may have been the position at the time of the second world war, the restrictions of the scheme are not relevant to the needs of the ports industry today. Even less do they match up to the challenges that British ports will face in the 1990s. [Interruption.] It is a pity that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who leads temporarily for the Opposition, is not even prepared to listen to the argument on this issue.
We want to ensure a good future for our ports and for those working in them. But that future will not be assured by the antiquated restrictions of the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I will not give way.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), but I must tell him and those who put forward similar arguments that they are fighting yesterday's battle on dock work. If they doubt that, they need only look at


the experience of the ports outside the scheme, where trade has expanded, employment has grown and nobody has seriously claimed that that progress has been achieved by the exploitation of the dockers in those ports.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I have only two minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman has spent five minutes talking to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fowler: Pay, hours and working conditions in the non-scheme ports are negotiated by the Transport and General Workers Union, the same union which conducts the negotiations in the scheme ports. Every assurance has been given that there will be no return to casual working. It is not revolutionary to suggest that dockers should move up to the position occupied by virtually every other worker in this country.
It is now in nobody's interest that there should be delay. Without the restrictions, the scheme ports will be able to compete better. Our proposals are for the benefit of the ports industry, the work force and for the inner city areas around the ports.
We know what has happened in the non-scheme ports—we have seen the development of trade and of employment. That is in stark contrast to everything that has happened in the scheme ports. That is why we believe that the dock labour scheme should be abolished. The motion provides ample time for a full debate on the remainder of a short Bill. The time has come for decision and it is for Parliament to decide the issue. The decision should be taken in Parliament and not on the picket lines that the Labour party is so enthusiastic to reinstate.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 170.

Division No. 188]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Allason, Rupert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Atkins, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Chris


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boswell, Tim
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Bowis, John
Chope, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Churchill, Mr





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cope, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Cran, James
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Curry, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
McCrindle, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Favell, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mans, Keith


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gale, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neale, Gerrard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gregory, Conal
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ground, Patrick
Portillo, Michael


Hague, William
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Renton, Tim


Hanley, Jeremy
Rhodes James, Robert


Hannam, John
Riddick, Graham


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Harris, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Haselhurst, Alan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rost, Peter


Hayward, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Heddle, John
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hind, Kenneth
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shersby, Michael


Howard, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Speller, Tony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunter, Andrew
Squire, Robin


Irvine, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Janman, Tim
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)






Stokes, Sir John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sumberg, David
Walden, George


Summerson, Hugo
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Woodcock, Mike


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Tony Durant and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Anderson, Donald
Galloway, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Armstrong, Hilary
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gordon, Mildred


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Margaret
Grocott, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bermingham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blair, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Leighton, Ron


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Stott, Roger


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis


Radice, Giles
Vaz, Keith


Randall, Stuart
Wall, Pat


Redmond, Martin
Wallace, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Wareing, Robert N.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Short, Clare
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.

Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House ills Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.


4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days
7.—
(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—


(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Reccommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, reccommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Smoking in Public Places

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the procedure under which we shall debate the motion. The motion is much more fundamental and important than may at first seem apparent, because it represents a significant change in Government policy.
The motion announces that, on all Euro-nanny smoking matters, the Government now intend suddenly to fall back on a most welcome voluntary approach, and to declare that such matters are no longer within the competence of the EEC.
On 14 November 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor as Under-Secretary of State for Health—introduced an EEC directive on tobacco products whose intention was to relabel all tobacco cartons in this country, on the ground that it was a thoroughly good thing that the EEC should attempt to reduce people's smoking activities and to stop them smoking. So from compulsion on 14 November we have moved to voluntarism on 8 March.
That change is welcome, but I understand that the House has only 15 minutes to debate the motion before the procedural axe falls. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health should come to the House to explain the difference between the policy of 14 November and that being adopted today and also to make it clear that something of considerable significance is occurring in our relations with the EEC.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Although the procedural axe will fall at 7 o'clock, we shall return to the motion after private business has been dealt with. The hon. Gentleman's other points can be raised during the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a proposal before the House from the EEC in the name of Lord Cockfield, its former Commissioner, stating that the Government should, to conform with the Single European Act, reduce cigarette tax. The motion now before the House aims at reducing smoking, but according to the Department of Health, the EEC proposals would, because of reduced taxation, serve to increase it. My understanding of parliamentary rules is that the House cannot consider conflicting proposals. I wonder whether that rule applies also to the EEC proposal instructing the Government to reduce taxation on cigarettes. Do the restrictions placed on normal parliamentary debate apply to EEC proposals?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Nothing in the motion before the House is against parliamentary rules. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue his line of argument, he should do so in debate, after the motion has been moved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft

Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area.
Smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom today. Ninety per cent. of all lung cancer deaths, 20 per cent. of all deaths due to coronary heart disease and 90 per cent. of all deaths caused by bronchitis are associated with smoking. Smoking during pregnancy may now be the single most important cause of late foetal death and leads to reduced birth weight and increased perinatal mortality. It is likely that giving up smoking is the single most important thing that smokers can do to improve their health. The Government actively discourage smoking and have an extensive public education programme run by the Health Education Authority.
Most smokers take up regular smoking before the age of 18, and it has been estimated that of the 250 million children and teenagers now living in the European region of the World Health Organisation between 30 and 40 million will be killed in later life by tobacco. It is obviously crucial to reach young people of school age and help them to resist the pressure to start smoking. In January the Prime Minister launched a three-year campaign to reduce the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This campaign will be run jointly by the Health Education Authority and the Department of Health and will cost the Department £2 milion each year for the next three years. The campaign will use the mass media—including TV, radio and magazines—to influence teenage children, and it will also seek the support of a wide range of national and local organisations, including schools, local education authorities, health authorities, Action on Smoking and Health and leading health charities.
This debate gives members a valuable opportunity to consider the draft EC recommendation on smoking in public places which will come to the Council of Ministers on 16 May. The purpose of the recommendation is to exhort member states to make progress in providing smoke-free areas in enclosed premises to which the public have access. The Government wholeheartedly support that aim. Our approach of encouraging the provision of smoke-free areas has met with a good deal of success, and I would very much like that to continue. However, it is very important that we do not allow the Commission to use the recommendation as a means to extend its competence. That is why, as I will explain shortly, the United Kingdom has proposed that we should replace the recommendation with a mixed resolution. I shall describe what is meant by that in a moment.

Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend is dealing with the issue of extending the competence of the EC, will he now deal with the point that I raised in my point of order a few moments ago? Her Majesty's Government were all in favour of extending that competence to deal with compulsory anti-smoking directives a few months ago. Why has there been a complete change of heart tonight? Why are the Government now in favour only of the voluntary approach to curbing excessive smoking?
I know that occupants of my hon. Friend's office seem to have a rather high casualty rate nowadays, so I advise him to choose his words carefully. Nevertheless, the ambivalence needs to be clarified.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will


be able to amplify his point, but I shall try to address it in the few remarks that I intend to make in opening the debate. If I am able—with your permission—to reply at the end, I may expand on them then.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I should like to make progress.

Mr. Marlow: If I intervene at this stage, I dare say that my hon. Friend will be able to make even swifter progress.
My hon. Friend is concerned about the competence of the Community with regard to this issue, as, I am sure, are most right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend is aware of the existence of the scrap of paper called the Single European Act, which states that the Community—I presume that that includes my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—was
Moved by the will … to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union".
If my right hon. Friend has signed a treaty to move us towards European union, does that not mean that this measure is a proper measure to be decided at European level, and that therefore Europe should have competence? How can my hon. Friend say that Europe does not have competence when our right hon. Friend has signed this turbid and unpleasant document?

Mr. Freeman: First, we argue that the changes made by the European Commission in the text of the document that we have before us are acceptable, in the sense that the document does not recommend legislation but would enable Her Majesty's Government to continue with their programme of encouraging individuals, authorities and other bodies to operate a voluntary code limiting or banning smoking in certain parts of public places. Secondly, we argue that under the treaty the Commission has no power in public health matters. I hope that I have made that crystal clear.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's courtesy in giving way. One thing that we would love to know is what the Government can do if they take the view that the measure is beyond the competence of the EC, but the majority of Ministers decide to approve it. Is there anything that we can do to stop it from coming into effect? Some of us are very worried about that. Have we any powers to stop it unless we can persuade all the member states unanimously that the EC is not competent?

Mr. Freeman: A unanimous decision is required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If my hon. Friends will permit me to develop my remarks, I shall demonstrate that a mixed resolution or recommendation combines the elements of a matter within the general competence of the Council and those of a decision reached by the various Ministers present, outside the treaty of Rome, if they believe that it is in the interests of all the nations involved. I shall be arguing that in the case of public health matters, which are separate from environmental matters, the writ of the treaty does not run, and we resist the general priciple that the Commission should seek to extend its powers in this regard.
It may be helpful if I set out some of the background. There has been much concern in recent years about the

risks of "secondary" or "passive" smoking, and that is the underlying motivation behind the recommendation. The Government accept the findings of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which concluded that there was a 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers who are habitually exposed to tobacco smoke. That could account for several hundred deaths each year. There is also a risk of increased respiratory disease in children, and in pregnant women the development of the foetus may be damaged. Tobacco smoke can also cause considerable irritation to the eyes and throat.
Public awareness about the risks of passive smoking has increased public demand for the provision of smoke-free areas. Generally, smokers and non-smokers alike consider it right that smoke-free areas should, if at all possible, be available in public places. The Government actively encourage the implementation of smoking policies and welcome the increasing introduction of smoke-free zones in public places such as cinemas, shops, restaurants and public transport.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why, then, have the Government done nothing to introduce no-smoking areas in pubs? Is the Minister aware that the House approved my ten-minute Bill providing that there should be non-smoking areas in pubs, yet the previous Health Minister—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—actively resisted any demand for action? Why are pubs the one area in which the Government refuse to try to enforce such a requirement?

Mr. Freeman: We argue that in the case of restaurants, pubs and aeroplanes—the hon. Gentleman will remember a recent debate in the House on banning smoking in aeroplanes—it is for the publican, the restaurateur, the airline or whatever authority is involved to decide. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is already legislation relating to transport: London Underground has banned smoking, which it is able to do under its byelaws—not, I should add, for reasons of public health, but for reasons of public safety. There is a considerable difference between legislation to protect the public safety and legislation to protect the public health.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend has outlined the dangers of passive smoking. On what evidence does he make his statement? Does it come from his Department, or can it be hearsay?

Mr. Freeman: I was hoping to come to that point shortly, but I shall deal with it directly to help my hon. Friend. We believe that passive smoking—that is, the inhalation of the cigarette smoke of others in public and, indeed, private places—leads to several hundred deaths a year. We believe that the incidence and possible incidence of cancer, particularly lung cancer, is increased, especially for those who are regularly exposed to smoking by others. That is not the conclusion of Ministers or other politicians; it is based on the advice of the chief medical officer.
We believe that in general voluntary policies are the best way to proceed, because such policies—being produced in response to consumer or employee demand—will cater for the needs of both smokers and non-smokers, and can be tailored more easily to individual areas and workplaces. We believe that such voluntary and


local action is preferable to a national legislated ban. As I have said before, where banning smoking is necessary for safety or hygiene we have not hesitated to introduce legislation, and under existing legislation London Underground has banned smoking for safety reasons.
The EC draft recommendation that we are considering tonight originates from the Europe Against Cancer action plan. Hon. Members may have seen the proposal as originally put forward by the Commission. The explanatory memorandum describes the amendments that have been made to the original proposal. As it now stands, the draft recommendation calls on member states to work towards a ban on smoking in enclosed premises open to the public and on public transport. This may be done through legislation or by other means, including voluntary means, which is the approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
The recommendation also calls for clearly defined areas to be set aside for smokers both in enclosed public places and on public transport—especially where long journeys might be involved. The recommendation is based on the treaty of Rome as a whole, not on any one article, which means that unaminity among member states is required if the measure is to be adopted.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said earlier that the European Community does not have competence with regard to—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

King's Cross Railways Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not accepted the instruction standing in the name of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, he has selected the other two instructions and it will be for the convenience of the House to debate them together, with the motion for Second Reading.

7 pm

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill gives powers to British Rail to carry out certain works at King's Cross, and I will describe them briefly in a moment, but the House will want to put these rather technical details in a broader context and see how the new King's Cross, made possible by the Bill, fits in with transport, planning and regional policies.
I hope that all in the House will agree on three broad objectives. The first is the need to invest substantially public transport, particularly in London, where the limitations of any policy relying too heavily on private transport are all too visible. I detect an impatience among Londoners, among those who commute to London and those who visit and use public transport in London about its quality and limitations. People want its capacity increased; they want it to be safer; and they want it to be more accessible and convenient to use. The Bill will help to achieve that objective by the improvements to the Underground, and by the improvement in the interchange between British Rail and London Regional Transport. Given constraints on public expenditure, and the understandable wish to keep fares down, if these improvements and increases in capacity can be funded in part from planning gain, so much the better.
That leads to the second objective. We all wish to bring back into use derelict land, particularly in our inner cities, where its misuse is least defensible. Unemployment in parts of inner London is still far too high and, with pressure on land elsewhere that has a high amenity value, the neglect of acres upon acres of unused land in the heart of the capital cannot be tolerated. The works in the Bill unlock the development potential of the land behind King's Cross. This capital surplus will be used by British Rail to pay for other works in a partnership between public and private sectors, which is now accepted by all parties as a sensible way to proceed. The development will also bring jobs to a part of London where they are still scarce. Some 30,000 jobs will be provided in the associated redevelopment of the area, and rightly so, because King's Cross is identified as a preferred office location in the Greater London development plan, subject to improvement of the public transport system. The Bill does that.
In the draft strategic planning guidance for London, the Secretary of State pointed out in March:
there are likely to be development opportunities on large sites in London which were formerly required for public utilities or services, but which are no longer needed for these purposes.
King's Cross is just such a site. For 15 years, it has been identified by local authorities as an area of opportunity. The works in the Bill free the development land, planning


permission for which is being sought in the normal way by the developer from the local authority. The opportunity is now here.
Thirdly, as our trade with Europe increases and links with markets there become more important, we must ensure that all regions of the country have access to those markets and the opportunity to share in the benefits. The Bill helps to achieve that objective by linking the British Rail network in the north with that in the south, and in a way that no other transport interchange ever could. Direct travel from Europe to the north becomes possible.
I should now like to relate the works in the Bill to the broader objectives that I have outlined. Much of the Bill improves public transport. Work No. 5 provides a connection between the east coast main line, and St. Pancras station. This will allow Network SouthEast trains from the Peterborough and Cambridge lines to run into St. Pancras station. At the moment, these trains end up in a separate suburban station to the west of King's Cross, some way from the Underground and the rest of the services in the terminal. Demand on these lines has been growing and, as there is spare capacity at St. Pancras, it makes sense to use it by providing this connection. Works Nos. 11A and 11B lengthen the platforms at St. Pancras to take 12-car trains and provide additional platforms to accommodate future growth.
On the same theme, works Nos. 1 to 7 and Nos. 10 to 5 in the London Regional Transport half of the schedule provide for the enlargement of the existing Underground ticket hall, which is already becoming very congested, and for new subways which will relieve pressure and provide additional access and escape routes. King's Cross-St. Pancras is one of the busiest and most complex Underground stations, handling some 80 million passengers a year, serving five Underground lines and two British Rail terminals. The provisions in the Bill cope with current congestion problems, and provide for future growth already projected, plus the additional traffic from the railway lands site and the improvements to British Rail services.
In addition, a new Underground ticket hall—the eastern ticket hall—will be built to serve the Thameslink platforms and the Northern, Piccadilly and Victoria lines. This replaces the present entrance in Pentonville road, at a more convenient location and with quicker exits from the three tube lines. The additional subways proposed also provide a secondary exit from each of the Underground platforms—valuable in the case of emergency evacuation of the station. Work No. 13 links this new eastern ticket hall with the main Underground ticket hall.
The most important of the subway works provide direct connections between the Circle and Metropolitan line platforms, and the three deep tube lines—the Northern, Piccadilly and Victoria. At the moment, if one wants to change, one has to go through the already overcrowded ticket hall. This new subway connection will reduce traffic in the ticket hall by about 30 per cent., and implements recommendation 142 in the Fennell report.
Work No. 4 replaces the present unfriendly access to the Underground from St. Pancras down a narrow and tortuous subway with an enlarged and improved one.
The principal work in the Bill is a new British Rail station, beneath the existing King's Cross main line

station. At its northern end, the tracks divide to join both the east coast main line and the midland main line. At the south end, the tracks connect with Thameslink and, at a future date, and if the House so decides, with the Channel Tunnel rail link.

Mr. Roy Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman is the spokesman for the sponsors of the Bill, perhaps I should mention to him that I have received a communication from a body known as the Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales. It consists of four major county councils: Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. They complain that none of the proposals provides for any link between the western region InterCity service operating from Paddington to south Wales and the proposed new terminal at King's Cross. They say that if they are to benefit from the Channel tunnel traffic, such a link is absolutely essential. Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about that point?

Sir George Young: I agree that it will be important to ensure that people in south Wales have access to the Channel tunnel terminal and, through that, access to Europe. Whether it makes sense to provide that access at King's Cross and, therefore, through the Bill, I am not sure, but I shall pass on to British Rail the hon. Gentleman's valuable point in order to make sure that south Wales benefits from the links with Europe.
A new station is needed anyway. The existing Thameslink station is already inadequate. The platforms were originally designed for the local service from Moorgate to Bedford, before Thameslink was conceived. With this popular cross-London line now in operation, the platforms—particularly northbound—are very crowded, and they cannot be widened because they are up against the Circle line. The only way to cope with extra demand is to relocate the station, which provides the opportunity to bring it closer to the main line platforms, thereby improving interchange and making it accessible to people with disabilities.
At the moment, Thameslink reaches only the Bedford line to the north. The proposed connection links it to the east coast main line as well. This opens up a wealth of opportunities, such as trains from Peterborough to Gatwick, Cambridge to Sevenoaks, and so on.
Next to the new Thameslink platforms, again beneath King's Cross main line, are the international platforms, and it is this part of the Bill which has generated some controversy. Why another international station, and why King's Cross?
All the forecasts show that existing capacity at Waterloo, the other international terminal that is due to open in 1996, will not be able to cope with expected traffic beyond the turn of the century. Putting aside the strong arguments for a terminal at King's Cross in its own right, we need to develop more capacity to cope with rail-based traffic to and from Europe.
King's Cross is uniquely well served by other British Rail and Underground lines, as well as being easily accessible by bus and taxi. That convenience of interchange and access to public transport puts it way ahead of other rivals—notably Stratford—in its convenience for customers. In particular, it is the best calling point on the way to the north, allowing a passenger to get off a train from Paris to Newcastle and get on one from


Brussels to Manchester. Further, it offers international passengers easy interchange to Inter-City services to the rest of the country and to Network SouthEast services to locations closer to London. That ability to integrate the international services with the existing British Rail network simply does not exist at any other main line terminal, let alone some of the other options that have been canvassed.

Mr. Frank Dobson: If all this is true, when the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and the location of the first terminal at Waterloo were being considered, why did counsel for British Rail say that King's Cross was unsuitable because of overcrowding of tube lines and above-ground links?

Sir George Young: As I have explained, other provisions of the Bill increase capacity at King's Cross. Underground capacity is being increased by other parts of the Bill. At that stage, forecasts were much lower, and it was thought that Waterloo would suffice. Forecasts have been revised and it is no longer suitable to rely only on Waterloo as the other terminal.

Mr. Dobson: Counsel for British Rail also asserted that the roads around King's Cross were far too crowded and could not cope with additional traffic. They are more crowded now than when he said that.

Sir George Young: The philosophy behind King's Cross is its access by public transport, which puts it way ahead of all the other possible interchanges. Compared with the car, which is the form of transport that would have to be used for some of the other options, King's Cross is unrivalled in its access to public transport.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) intervened, my hon. Friend said that two or three major cities in the north will have through trains from the continent. My hon. Friend did not mention Britain's second biggest city—Birmingham. Will he comment on the scope for through trains from the continent to Birmingham?

Sir George Young: The Bill does not preclude other links, such as those to the west coast main line. If British Rail decides to develop other links, legislation will be brought forward at the appropriate time.
While the Bill makes provision for the second international terminal to be at King's Cross, it does not prejudge the exact line of route of the link to it from the Channel tunnel. The chosen route will be the subject of a separate Bill. As I have said, the Bill also does not preclude a passenger link to the west coast main line.
The reason why provision for the international terminal needs to be made in the Bill is that the construction works for it need to be integrated with the other works to which I have referred. The additional Thameslink capacity is required now, and British Rail wants to present all the proposals for King's Cross together.
The platforms on the proposed international station will take 16-coach trains and two power cars. Those platforms, which will be below ground, will be linked by subways to the new terminal building, the main line platforms and the Underground. Provision is also being made for security staff, Customs and immigration and police.
The new terminal building will be located between King's Cross and St. Pancras. It will serve both stations and replace the unattractive structure in front of King's Cross, planning consent for 'which expires in 1993. The new concourse will have access to both main line stations, the international and Thameslink platforms and the Underground ticket hall.
I know that local Members of Parliament are concerned about the impact of traffic on their constituencies. We have already heard some interventions expressing such concern. I hope that I have made it clear that the philosophy behind the Bill is to encourage access by public transport. It is hoped that people travelling north from Europe will not travel to King's Cross by taxi from Waterloo, but board a train at Paris that travels to King's Cross.
Improvements are planned for the road network, especially better access by bus. At the moment, one is tipped out in a nearby road and makes one's way to the station. There will be proper access to the station by bus and improvements to the road network at the junctions of Caledonian road, Pentonville road and King's Cross road, which is wholly inadequate at the moment and for which improvements have been planned for 15 years.
As sponsor of the Bill, I have taken a special interest in Camley street natural park, about which I have received many letters. In the five years since it started, the park, which is ably run by the London Wildlife Trust, has become a popular destination for Londoners interested in its nature reserve. The location of the international terminal, and the connections between the east coast and midland lines, require its relocation during construction and its reinstatement on a larger site thereafter.
Together with the developers of the railway lands and London Wildlife Trust, British Rail has identified a larger area for the park to be re-established within the new development. Every assistance will be given to the trust to continue its work during construction and to restock the park when established on its permanent site on completion. I have no doubt that it will then be better placed to continue its valuable educational role within an enhanced and enlarged natural park.
The Bill offers the opportunity to improve the appearance of this part of London and to turn King's Cross and St. Pancras into not only Europe's largest transport interchange but an attractive set of buildings of which Londoners can be proud. One cannot see the front of King's Cross at present because of the temporary structure in front of it. Once removed, the train sheds, which are grade 1 listed buildings, will be visible again in all their glory. Between them and the Midland hotel will be the new terminal building, which had been designed to the highest architectural standards to match its neighbours. The new vista will be incomparably better than the muddle that we have at present.
I have outlined the provisions of the Bill and put them in a broader context. If time permits and the House allows it, I shall be happy to deal with points made in the debate. Of course, achieving the objectives that I have outlined involves disruption, inconvenience and disappointment for some local people and businesses. I do not disguise that fact, and local Members of Parliament are right to fight for those whom they represent. Changes have been made, further consultation is planned, some have petitioned against the Bill and the Committee will hear them. I have no doubt that Parliament should endorse the strategy behind the Bill, which is to enhance the role of King's


Cross in our nation's public transport network, to build stronger links between Scotland, the north, the midlands and Europe and to improve the Underground in the light of the Fennell report.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving details at this stage, which is helpful. He mentioned the importance of public transport and through trains from the continent to the north. Is he aware that British Rail has stated that its policy is to try to concentrate international trains from London to the continent because it is more economic to do so and to get people to change in London? Can he give any undertakings that that policy will be changed to provide from King's Cross—I should prefer from Stratford—through trains to the north and Scotland, as so many of my hon. Friends reasonably want?

Sir George Young: I have no instructions, and I should not want British Rail to do anything that minimised the search for economy. If I can offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman now or later, I shall try to do so.
The hon. Gentleman hit me in mid-peroration. I was saying that the House should support the Bill's objectives of improving the Underground in the light of the Fennell report, facilitating the regeneration of a rundown part of London and providing local employment.
I believe that this is the most exciting transport project to come before the House for a long time, and I hope that hon. Members give it their support.

Mr. Chris Smith: I must record my dismay at the way in which the private Bill procedure is being used to bring in the proposals for King's Cross. The Bill represents the piecemeal approach to major transport and development planning, which should be the province of far more sensible and democratic procedures than those available under the private Bill process. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) the promoter of the Bill, who normally says far more sensible things in the House, said that the Bill did not preclude a passenger link to services to the north-west. Neither he nor British Rail has told us whether there will be a passenger rail link to services to the north-west. It is precisely because we have a Bill in isolation which deals simply and solely with the station, not with the routes to or from that station, that we cannot consider many of the ramifications of the Bill in relation to services to and from the station. That creates an enormous difficulty when we try to address the plans and transport issues properly.
The private Bill procedure—and we know from our debates only two weeks ago about the inadequacies of that procedure—is not appropriate for dealing with detailed planning issues, which should be the subject of a public local inquiry. The private Bill procedure is not a sensible way of dealing with major, strategic national issues about the use and spread of the economic benefits that the Channel tunnel can bring. All those issues are contained within the Bill, yet we are being asked to discuss them without prior consideration by the Select Committee on Transport, without any specific planning approach from British Rail, the Department of Transport or this House. That is not a sensible way to reach such a major decision.
The private Bill procedure used in this instance pays little respect to the rights of those who want to object to the proposals in the Bill. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House claimed that private Bills were even-handed between objectors and promoters. They are not.
For example, one has to look only at the treatment meted out to English Heritage, which rightly said that it had an interest in clause 19. Clause 19 will affect several listed buildings within the purview of the site that British Rail seeks to contain within the work proposed in the Bill. Several buildings will be affected, such as a grade 2 listed building at No. 7 Caledonian road, dating from 1875, a grade 2 listed building, "The Bell" public house, at 259 Pentonville road and the Great Northern hotel, which is also a grade 2 listed building. All those buildings will go, yet English Heritage, which clearly has a valuable point of view on listed buildings, has not been allowed even to present a petition against the Bill. That is due wholly to the fact that the agents acting for British Rail sought to delete English Heritage from the list of petitioners against the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, until 50 years ago, there were only a mere handful of objections to locus standi? Within the past few weeks, British Rail has caught up the backlog of the past 50 years.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. British Rail's agents have objected to locus standi for well over 100 petitioners—I cannot remember the exact figure—including people and organisations from my own constituency and others such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who sought to put her own petition against the Bill. There is an organisation in my constituency called Crossfire—it has still to be considered by the Court of Referees so I shall not trespass on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by dwelling on it—which has the particular purpose of protecting the King's Cross area from unnecessary and unwanted development. It has been challenged by British Rail, although it has a strong case to make and important points to put.
When a number of petitioners, who were accepted as having a locus standi by the promoters of the Bill, gathered to meet last Friday with representatives of British Rail, they were given an extremely dusty reception. When, for example, they asked for copies of the presentations that British Rail would be making to the Bill—one would expect them, as petitioners, to have that right—they were told that they could not have them. They were told further that if they wanted such copies, they would have to come to Parliament and pay the normal charges for copying.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a document circulated by British Rail which I received this morning, as in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), there are many references to the high-speed link? Yet all the organisations that have been careful to present arguments about the high-speed link have been denied locus standi.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right: he identifies precisely the problem of dealing with a station apparently in complete isolation from any consideration of routes leading to it. That procedure is nonsense and it reveals the piecemeal way in which we are being asked to consider important issues. Over the past few months—and,


probably, in forthcoming months—we have heard of people whose livelihoods, properties, homes and area will be affected profoundly by the Bill, not being given a full democratic voice so that they can make objections and points about the Bill.
The Bill seeks to extinguish some reversionary rights in relation to parts of the land to the north of King's Cross, especially those possessed by the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The Bill seeks to extinguish those rights in relation to property development proposals that British Rail and the developers are seeking to implement by means of a Bill that should refer specifically to a Channel tunnel station. It is not sensible, fair or just to go about the process in such a way.
A number of proposals contained in the Bill relate to the overall Underground complex at King's Cross and contain some of the measures recommended in the Fennell report following the tragic fire one and a half years ago. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton made much of those provisions in the Bill. It is worth pointing out that virtually none of those works requires Bill procedures to be implemented. Most could be implemented simply by going through the normal planning procedures, but British Rail has chosen not to do so. To argue that those works should be a reason to pass the Bill would be disingenuous. The Bill is not needed to ensure that those works go ahead.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood from the Clerk of private Bills that private Bills could be used only for matters that could not be achieved in any other way. In view of what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has just said, can we be assured that every item in the Bill can be achieved only through this Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The vires of a Bill are tested by the Examiners, who go through it meticulously to ensure that it satisfies the requirements of the Standing Orders before it is presented to the House. The Bill has been dealt with by the Examiners, it is satisfactory and it contains nothing contrary to our Standing Orders that should inhibit our discussion of it.

Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Irrespective of the truth of your remarks about the Examiners, is it not a fact that, if a Committee finds that part of the works in the Bill could be achieved by other means, it is within the powers of that Committee to require the promoters to take that part from the text as a condition of passing the Bill? It has been known on rare occasions for a Committee not to pass a Bill at all, I believe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us take it one step at a time and dispose of Second Reading in one way or another first.

Mr. Smith: Following that extremely interesting and important exchange, I trust that if the Bill receives a Second Reading—unfortunate though that would be—the Committee might consider that point. The provision in the Bill for works to relieve congestion in the Underground booking hall at King's Cross—which we all know was the site of the fire in November 1987—fulfils recommendation 142 of the Fennell report. A private Bill is not required for those works to be proceeded with. Indeed, London Underground has been discussing with Camden council an application for planning permission for precisely those

works. It seems odd that London Underground should be applying for planning permission while at the same time joining British Rail in promoting the Bill.
I record my dismay at the way in which British Rail has constantly changed its mind—from one day to the next and from one issue to the next—in relation to King's Cross and all the works associated with it in the Bill. Some petitioners have at first been opposed as to locus standi but have subsequently been accepted. At one moment some of my hon. Friends have been told that passenger links with the north-west using rail lines linking the north-eastern and north-western lines may well be provided, while at the next British Rail is talking instead about a travelator running from King's Cross to Euston. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may well have something more to say about that.
It seems crazy that so-called direct routes to the north-west should involve someone getting off a train at King's Cross, coming up to a different level with his baggage and travelling half a mile underground on a travelator on to another station, another platform and another train. If British Rail thinks of that as a direct link to the north-west from the Channel tunnel, it ought to think again.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that British Rail has presented the direct link in the north, the north-west and the north-east in a different way, which has not involved any emphasis on travelators? It has implied that there will be through services.

Mr. Smith: That is so. British Rail has had a wonderful record of implying one thing to some hon. Members and another to other hon. Members during the preparation of the Bill. When I met British Rail officials last Friday, they told me that what they have in mind is a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. As far as I could divine, to all intents and purposes, that was the end of the story.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend have information to suggest that British Rail management will adopt a proposal similar to that for the so-called "Battersea Bullet"? Pictures at the windows give the impression that the train is moving at 150 miles an hour, although it is actually travelling at only 35 miles an hour. Does he think that British Rail has something similar in mind for the travelator?

Mr. Smith: I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend along that line. The difficulties of passenger transfer from a Channel tunnel train on to a completely different train starting from a different station are such that they must be obvious even to British Rail.

Mr. Dobson: Assuming that British Rail does not use the great circle route from King's Cross to Euston, the travelator will run entirely within my constituency. Did British Rail favour my hon. Friend with any indication of what route the travelator would take and whether it would be above or below ground?

Mr. Smith: The implication appeared to be that it would be below ground, but beyond that British Rail was not terribly forthcoming.
British Rail has changed its mind absolutely and completely about the choice of King's Cross in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St.


Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, when the Select Committee discussed the location of the station for the Channel tunnel at Waterloo, it asked British Rail whether alternative locations in London would be better or worse than Waterloo. British Rail was specifically asked about King's Cross. Its answer to the Select Committee in October 1986 was that King's Cross was an infinitely worse location than Waterloo; so bad was it that British Rail ruled it out completely.
Let me quote from page 1829 of the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill on 28 October 1986. Counsel for British Rail said:
The principal reservation
about King's Cross
is traffic congestion—which, as I say, features very badly compared with Waterloo.
British Rail now tells us that King's Cross is the best thing since sliced bread, although two and a half years ago it argued that it was the worst option. But the only thing that has changed in the past two and a half years is that the traffic congestion at King's Cross has got worse.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did my hon. Friend raise that matter in any of his discussions with British Rail? If so, what was its response?

Mr. Smith: I have certainly made the point in my various discussions with British Rail, but I do not think that I have yet received a response on it.
I have three major reasons for opposing the Bill and asking the House to refuse to give it a Second Reading. The first is its impact on the local neighbourhood. It will cut a swathe across the south-western corner of my constituency. It will involve the compulsory purchase of 17 acres of property to the east and south-east of the station. It will involve the demolition of almost all the 150 buildings on that 17-acre site. It will mean diverting two of London's main traffic arteries and blocking many other roads. It will mean excavating a 40 ft pit across most of the site, for a period of two years at least.
Thousands of people live and work in the buildings to be destroyed: 329 people will lose their homes; 59 local shops will have to close; 130 other businesses will lose their premises; 2,114 local jobs will go; the main Euston road post office will disappear.
In addition, the measure represents the destruction of a thriving local community. Over the past 20 years, much effort by local councils and by local people in particular has been put into the building up of a good, thriving, lively neighbourhood at King's Cross. Houses have been rehabilitated. The neighbourhood has been re-established as a wonderful place for people to live and be in. That will be destroyed by the proposals. Nothing can take that from the defects of the Bill.
Meanwhile, British Rail, which is proposing to gobble up 17 acres—with all the homes, jobs and people who will be affected—owns 125 acres to the north-east of King's Cross station. If it insists on using King's Cross as a location for its second Channel tunnel station, why on earth does it not use the land that it already owns rather than seek compulsory purchase of land and destroy jobs and homes in the process? Perhaps I can provide an answer on behalf of the promoter of the Bill. The reason is that British Rail does not want in any way to endanger the profit which it expects to make from the development of

railway lands to the north of King's Cross station. If it builds the new station there, that is precisely what will happen.
The second reason for opposing the Bill is that it will have a severe impact on congestion in the surrounding area. King's Cross is already one of the most congested locations in London, both above and below ground. We know that from the tragic events of November 1987. British Rail now proposes to put 15 million extra passengers a year through King's Cross. Quite simply, King's Cross cannot cope with that extra load. However the works are done and however much the underground booking hall is extended, King's Cross will not cope with the extra traffic, either above or below ground. Above-ground conditions will be particularly severe.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, parroting what British Rail has frequently said about the Bill, said that the philosophy behind the King's Cross location is its easy access by public transport. That may be the philosophy behind the choice of King's Cross, but it will not necessarily be the event—the actuality—of the location of the second Channel tunnel station. People will want to be met by coaches or by relatives. People will go to ground level and take taxis. People will arrive by train from Paris and get off at King's Cross. They will not go to the Underground but will get transport at road level. They will go into an already fiercely congested area.
Perhaps I can put it no better than the local chief superintendent of police put it in his annual report only a month or so ago. On policing in the King's Cross area, he wrote:
Plans for Kings Cross Railway Station will make it a major travel centre for Europe. This has major traffic implications for the area, even now the roads are unable to cope with the volume of traffic.
They are not my words. They are the words of the Metropolitan police. The police have identified what British Rail has ignored and what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton has sought to obfuscate—the severe traffic implications of what is being proposed for King's Cross and the surrounding area.
The third reason for opposing the Bill is that it represents a total absence of proper national strategic planning of the benefits from the Channel tunnel. As a nation, we should seriously think about how best to maximise the economic benefits that can be derived from the Channel tunnel and how to spread them as effectively as possible around the country. Putting services into King's Cross will not necessarily do that.
Let us carefully examine British Rail's claims about direct services to the north. In meetings that I and my colleagues have had with British Rail, it has said that, at most, it expects only a quarter of trains going into King's Cross to go northward from King's Cross. In other words, a small minority of trains will provide direct services to the north. Most trains will terminate at King's Cross. Indeed, British Rail gave that fact away in its information pack on the Channel tunnel rail link. Its leaflet called "Rail Services" refers to journey times for passengers and a new terminus at King's Cross—not a station: a terminus. A terminus is where trains stop and go no further. That is what British Rail has in mind for the great majority of traffic from the Channel tunnel to King's Cross.
All the talk about the possibility of direct links is a smokescreen to disguise the fact that the overwhelming majority of traffic will go to King's Cross and end there.


That is not a recipe for spreading the geographic and economic benefits of the Channel tunnel. It is a recipe for funnelling everything into the centre of London. That principle is behind British Rail's policy on the Bill.
Frankly, British Rail and hon. Members who argue its case about routes from King's Cross to the north have been disingenuous in their claims about the benefit of King's Cross as a location. The Bill represents no strategic thinking or planning. It will bring few long-term benefits, cause large-scale traffic chaos in much of north and north-east London, and involve the massive destruction of a thriving local neighbourhood. The Bill should be refuted.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This evening President Ortega of Nicaragua is addressing a rally at Central hall, which is not far from the House. A provocative counter-demonstration in support of the Contras is taking place not feet from the entrance to the hall and is resulting in a breach of public order. Two people have already been arrested. I have approached the police and asked them why it has been allowed, and they have said that they have given permission. I ask you, as Deputy Speaker, to make inquiries.
Students were not allowed to demonstrate within a mile of Parliament. Given that this demonstration is resulting in a breach of the peace and is an insult to a democratically elected President, I ask you to use your authority and ask for an explanation from the Metropolitan police.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chair has no authority to intervene in a matter for which it has no responsibility.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have jurisdiction when an hon. Member approaches the police and asks them to explain to demonstrators that they are in breach of the law, is refused access to the demonstrators, and is told by Inspector Grigg that he does not intend to tell them that they are in breach of the law? Surely you can do something when the upholders of the law are refusing to allow lawmakers access to people to tell them that they are breaking the law. Surely that is a serious breach.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It might be a breach, but it has nothing to do with the Chair of the House of Commons.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends are saying that the demonstration is not in breach of any statute but in breach of the Sessional Orders which we pass at the beginning of each Session of Parliament. There have been precedents. In the past, Mr. Speaker has undertaken to examine whether the Sessional Orders were being breached. Therefore, in those circumstances, it might be helpful if you could ask whether some Officers of the House might do that. The demonstration outside Central hall, Westminster could be breaching those Sessional Orders.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a reasonable request, and without any commitment, I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I rise briefly to join Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends in opposing the Bill. I do so for two reasons. First, I cannot see the area of King's Cross having the capacity to cope with the massive amount of traffic and congestion that would result from a terminus being built there. Secondly, if the legislation is not right in the first place, I see the battle of King's Cross today being the battle of Kent tomorrow and indeed the battle of the rest of the country as the 1990s progress towards the millennium.
On the first point, it seems most odd that a national transport institution such as British Rail is commencing a route from Europe into the capital of this country, starting at both ends, but being relatively unconcerned about what happens in the middle. Clearly, we need a national statement by British Rail about its policy for the country as a whole. I do not like and have not liked for some years the piecemeal approach that British Rail has developed towards access to and from Europe. I liken it to the dance of Salome and the seven veils. The unfortunate thing is that when we think that we are getting to veil No. 7 and are about to see the body beautiful, another seven veils are added. We are no nearer to the truth as we perceive it than we were when we started with the whole vexed question of this policy.
As an hon. Member representing north-west Kent, I can say that we were more than a little dismayed when the individuals and organisations along the route in Kent made applications to the Court of Referees for leave to appear before the appropriate Committee of this House to have their objections heard, but were turned down. We felt that that was wrong because we have as much interest in this legislation as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and his hon. Friends who represent central London. In that sense, unusual and unlikely as it is, we are at one in our opposition to this proposition.
I shall develop my argument on British Rail's piecemeal approach for a moment longer, because the House will understand that this is the first opportunity that I have had, as a Kentish Member, of getting my views on record about British Rail's proposals for the high-speed link and the consequential effect on London termini. The House will remember that some years ago we were told by British Rail that the Channel tunnel would have no impact on the need for extra rail capacity and that the existing network services could cope. Yet, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has said, today we are debating a proposition which, in the eyes of British Rail, was apparently wrong some time previously.
I should like to speak on two matters—the two instructions that have been chosen by Mr. Speaker for debate and the instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which refers to Stratford East. I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in saying that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is absolutely right that British Rail should give
adequate consideration to other possible locations at King's Cross and the proposal for a station at Stratford East".
I have total support for that as it would give the appropriate Committee of this House the opportunity to consider alternatives to the proposed route two for the high-speed rail link route through Kent. As the House


knows, my views on the high-speed link are quite simple. If British Rail wishes to place a high-speed route through my constituency, it can do so on one condition—that it goes underground. Under the terms of the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, British Rail could also consider TALIS—the Thames alternative link international system—which commands a great deal of support in north-west Kent. Therefore, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
The thing that worries me about this whole vexed matter is the impact on the environment. Any hon. Member whose constituency is affected by King's Cross, or by the preferred route 2 cannot but give statement to and evidence of the great distress and anxiety that the proposal has caused and will cause to many thousands of individuals, communities, places of work and to those who, like me, seek to protect the green belt, such as we have left, in north-west Kent.
Further, I am especially concerned that the promoter of the Bill did not refer in some detail to the impact of clause 19. It is an interesting clause and the precedents for the inclusion of such a clause in a private Bill are limited. The implications of clause 19 are that this private Bill will seek to override the general public law on the protection of listed buildings. If clause 19 were enacted, a precedent would have been created for the inclusion of similar clauses in other legislation from British Rail or from any other institution seeking to undertake a project of a similar scale and type.
We in Kent have suffered for some years from a tremendous demand for housing and urban development. We have a whole series of historic places from Folkestone to Bexley that would be severely affected and would have no protection under general law if a clause 19-type provision were included in the Channel tunnel high-speed link legislation as, if and when it comes forward. That is why I register my great concern about clause 19, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will reply to that point later.
Ultimately, we must consider ourselves in the traditional role of the House—as the guardians of the rights of the individual. The old-age pensioner in King's Cross and in Dartford has the same right to have his or her views made known about the legislation as do the large institutions of both corporate and local variety. If we cannot air our views in this way and make it easier for an individual to have his or her views made known, what are we doing in our business as legislators?
I commend the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and other hon. Members, and welcome entirely the stance that he has taken because—I repeat—the battle of King's Cross today is the battle of north Kent and of Kent as a whole tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has allowed himself to be used in such a way by British Rail. I understand—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that British Rail had some difficulty in finding someone to promote the Bill. Clearly, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr.

McNair-Wilson), whom one would normally expect to promote such a Bill, is not in his place. The hon. Member for Acton will learn in due course that he has been handed a parliamentary equivalent of the black spot from blind Pugh. If the Bill is ever passed, I suspect that when the hon. Gentleman passes through Kent he will need to go with a large entourage of bodyguards around him—because, as we know, he has a rather large body—plus a white stick.
I have a variety of reasons for opposing the Second Reading of the King's Cross Railway Bill. First, it is outrageous that such a vital strategic decision will be made without proper consideration of the transport needs of London or the south-east. There has been so meaningful consultation over the King's Cross proposal. British Rail has acted like a bunch of bully boys. it has been arrogant, high-handed and, what is even worse, it is now trying to use this place as a parliamentary rubber stamp for its proposals. We should not allow ourselves to be used in that fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the private Bill procedure was not designed for such complex strategic decision making.
I was one of the members of the Joint Committee that considered the private Bill procedure. The Committee was concerned that normal planning arrangements were being increasingly by passed through the private Bill procedure. One of our recommendations—on which I hope the House will eventually make a decision—was that environmental impact studies should accompany such proposals. At least we would then know that there had been some attempt to consider the planning and environmental impact implications of proposals contained in private Bills. I heard the Prime Minister in all her ignorance state recently that the private Bill procedure gave adequate opportunities for objectors to put their case. Clearly, she has never sat on a Committee considering a private Bill. If she had, she would never have made such an ill-informed comment.
Secondly, we have already heard that British Rail is knocking out as many of the potential petitions as it possibly can by challenging the locus standi of objectors. Indeed, more objections concerning locus standi have been raised by British Rail on this Bill than in the previous 50 years. That is no way to convince people that one is prepared to consult and to have people examine one's proposals fairly and impartially. Instead, British Rail is using a technical device to ensure that the voice of opposition is never heard during the private Bill Committee stage. The private Bill procedure is entirely inadequate as a substitute for properly convened public inquiries. I believe, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there should be a proper public inquiry before the Bill is allowed to proceed.
Thirdly, the King's Cross Railway Bill is about the location of a terminal. However, Parliament is being asked to take that decision before it has been asked to determine the route of the rail link from the tunnel to the new second terminal. It is a classic case of putting the carriages before the engine. If that is the way in which British Rail runs a transport undertaking, it comes as little surprise that so many of its trains have recently been crashing into the buffers.
What confidence can one have in an organisation such as British Rail, which finds itself seeking permission to construct a second terminal before the first one is built? What level of ineptitude has led British Rail to


miscalculate passenger demand completely so soon after the decision to make Waterloo the site of the London terminal? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury correctly reminded us, it was during the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill that British Rail's so-called experts specifically ruled out King's Cross as a site. What has changed in the couple of years that have since passed? All we know is that there is far more traffic congestion and chaos on the roads of London, and certainly around King's Cross, than there was two and a half years ago.
I believe that it is a monumental miscalculation that British Rail is now bringing this new proposal before us. It is breathtaking stupidity. I do not see how the House can have any confidence or trust in British Rail's ability to get its next decision right, when one considers how badly it got its first decision wrong. How can we take its arguments seriously any more?
All British Rail's decision-making processes have been carried out behind a veil of secrecy. It has shown sheer insensitivity about the needs, wishes and fears of people both in London and Kent, which is no way to treat people. If this terminal is supposed to be for the people of London, of the south-east and of the country as a whole, they should be consulted about decisions that are taken by grey, faceless bureaucrats in the British Rail headquarters.
Fourthly, there is a planning vacuum in the south-east. When I visited British Rail and stressed the strategic implications of the decision enshrined within the Bill, it told me that its only concern was running a transport undertaking. It was not its function or responsibility to act as the strategic transport planning authority for London. I accepted what it said. The Secretary of State for Transport came to see the London group of Members of Parliament. He probably thought it was safer to be with us at that time than being chased by people about a variety of matters affecting aircraft safety. When asked a direct question, he told our group that he was not responsible for strategic transport planning in London. The House is entitled to know who is. I still cannot believe that someone as young as the Minister for Public Transport is in a position of such authority in the Government. He is the young Lochinvar of the Conservative party. He is perhaps the person to whom we should turn and ask about the transport strategic decision-making processes in London.

Mr. Spearing: I was so intrigued by the admission of a planning vacuum by the Secretary of State for Transport, who everyone assumed had that responsibility, that I ventured a written question to him. To my surprise, the answer that came back was that the statutory responsibility for co-ordinating public transport in London was with London Regional Transport. My only comment on that was, as in most other things, that that did not give me any confidence.

Mr. Banks: One can hardly be surprised at that. We find it difficult to accept that a vacuum should be allowed to exist. In many ways one can believe that it is a positive dereliction of duty towards the people of London and the south-east that no one is prepared to take responsibility for strategic decisions that will affect the country for decades to come. No other European country would go about things in such a half-cocked way as this Government, aided and abetted by British Rail—or perhaps it is the other way round.
The suggestion that all strategic matters can be dealt with by a private Bill Committee of four Members of Parliament would be laughable if it were not so serious and far-reaching. We are told that we are now the substitute planning inquiry. That is fine, because Members of Parliament like to think that they have a little power. The Prime Minister does not often give us very much. Therefore, this is the beginning of the process. This is the Second Reading, but where is everyone? They will all troop in later. I shall look very carefully to see whether the Prime Minister once again turns up in her curlers and slippers, as she did for one of the earlier private Bills. I shall also be interested to see whether the payroll vote has been whipped in.

Mr. Snape: It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend said that it was not the Prime Minister, but that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was probably going off to another disco, with his shirt slashed to his very ample waist, revealing a very hirsute chest. It was the sort of sight to turn a strong stomach. It was not the sort of thing that a clean-living Member of Parliament such as myself would wish to be associated with.
Although those hon. Members will not have been involved in the discussion, they will vote. Planning matters cannot be left to that level of uncertainty and that lack of involvement.
We are told that the private Bill procedure is an adequate replacement for planning procedure. The Prime Minister herself said that. It is not so. Four Members will be asked to sit on that Private Bill Committee, and they will not even have an interest in the area. One of the requirements to sit on an opposed Bill Committee is that one does not have a constituency interest. Often, that means that there is no interest. The Members just want to get out of the Committee as fast as possible. Such an important decision should not be left in the hands of people who will not want the opportunity with which we shall present them.
I want the House to reject the Bill so that British Rail can give proper consideration to the other options for the location of the terminal. If the House will not do that, I hope that it will at least pass to the Committee the instruction on the Order Paper which will require British Rail to look seriously at the options. So far, it has just put up a facade of consultation and consideration. We want it to consider the options properly, particularly the option cif Stratford in the borough of Newham.
My council has been campaigning consistently for the terminal to be located at Stratford in the east end, in my constituency. We want it there for a variety of reasons. There is adequate British Rail-owned land there already. There will be no need to destroy listed buildings and community facilities, as will happen if the terminal is located at King's Cross. Stratford has a railway tradition going back to the 19th century. There is adequate transport infrastructure and more is planned, for which we are grateful. The development at Stratford will give a further boost to the economic development of the east end as a whole. Of great significance, the London borough of Newham entirely supports the location of the terminal in our area. That support is also given by the surrounding boroughs.

Mr. Leighton: Has my hon. Friend noticed the remarkable fact that everywhere else—for example in Kent and most other places in Britain—we have the "not in my back yard" factor? The London borough of Newham is saying, "Please put this in our back yard." Is that not completely unprecedented? Surely it must weigh with British Rail when an area will give a welcome to the development and not the opposition that one sees everywhere else.

Mr. Banks: A new acronym is born, IOBY—in our back yard. We are saying, "Yes, we are prepared to have the development, and the surrounding local authorities will co-operate with the Government and British Rail in locating it." It is not often that the young Minister gets such an offer, yet he is turning his face against it. It is a great pity for London, the south-east and the country as a whole.
I realise that several of my hon. Friends have expressed a clear preference for King's Cross over Stratford. I hope that they will take time to read the report commissioned by Newham from Colin Buchanan and Partners, which puts the case for Stratford rather than King's Cross. It is described as the case the nation must hear. I shall ensure that the Minister gets a copy and I hope that he will study it [Interruption.] The Minister has a copy. Excellent. That means that the communications system has been working well. I hope that he has read the report. If he has, I am sure that it will convince him that the decision that he will be allowed to make to locate the second terminal at King's Cross is wrong and that he should quickly change his position.
It is not surprising that since British Rail made the proposal, it cannot reject the notion that others will also explore the idea of a Channel tunnel terminal, in this case at Stratford. This is especially true since it appears that the comparative studies originally considered necessary by British Rail have not been carried out other than in a very cursory manner indeed. The Buchanan study does not claim to have done justice to all the technical matters involved in making a proper comparison between King's Cross and Stratford, but it has carried the analysis far enough to show that a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel to a new terminal at Stratford will be far cheaper than British Rail's proposal involving King's Cross. The capital cost saving would probably be in the range of £500 million to £1,100 million. Partly because of the imaginative cross-rail proposal which has emerged from the central London rail study since the decision on King's Cross was taken, the time disadvantage of Stratford compared with King's Cross for a journey from Paris to central London probably averages no more than five minutes, while in certain key areas, notably Canary wharf and the Liverpool street area, journey times via Stratford would be much quicker.
Stratford is capable of providing the onward rail connections for through services with journey times not noticeably different from those achievable via King's Cross. Where through services are not operated because the demand does not justify them, an interchange is necessary in London. Travel times would also be very close. The Stratford site will shortly be connected directly to the M11 and could easily accommodate the car and coach parking essential to a major international transport terminal.
King's Cross, by contrast, lies at one of the most persistently congested points of London's road network—the worst point at which to locate a major traffic generator. Because Stratford is near the Temple Mills mashalling yards and because it can have new carriage cleansing yards adjacent to it, it would permit the operation of a much tidier, more self-contained and cost-effective rail operation, with freight services able to make use of the full length of the high-speed line wherever traffic paths can be made available between passenger services.
A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford would be of a quality, spaciousness and greenness which, no matter how clever the architecture, can never be matched underground at King's Cross in the midst of one of the most tangled and congested rail complexes in the world. A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford offers the opportunity to achieve a major inner-city redevelopment of the type known to be favoured by Ministers which could accord with the key planning objectives recently set out by the Secretary of State for the Environment. A Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford accords with the local plan for the area, whereas one at King's Cross contradicts the recently adopted local plan of Camden.
There are many good reasons why the House, if it will not throw out the Bill, should at least take the opportunity through the private Bill procedure to consider in some depth what is clearly a viable alternative that would meet the needs of London, the fears of the people of Kent and provide the sort of facility that the east end desperately needs. It would enable us to serve transport in London and the country as a whole in a way that would not cause the damage and distress in King's Cross that the Bill proposes.
For all those reasons I ask the House, even if it is minded to give the Bill a Second Reading—I hope that there are enough of us to vote it down—at least to accept the instruction that stands in my name and those of hon. Members on both sides, so that proper consideration can be given to the viable alternative of Stratford.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this point to set out the Government's position on the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on an extremely lucid and helpful explanation of the Bill.
Perhaps I should begin by emphasising that the Bill does not deal with the development of the King's Cross railway land. That is entirely a planning matter which is the subject of planning applications currently lodged with the London borough of Camden. The Bill deals with proposed operational railway and underground works, the need for which is independent of the development of that site. Some part of that need is urgent. The relevance of the wider planning issue to the Bill is that British Rail and London Regional Transport either seek powers now for their railway development or lose the chance of effective railway development at King's Cross if the rest of the development then proceeds. Once any development is completed, it will be impossibly expensive to carry out extensive railway projects on the scale envisaged.
There are three distinct elements in the Bill: first, BR works to permit commuter services which operate into King's Cross to use St. Pancras; secondly, BR works to


construct a low-level station for the use of rail services, whether domestic or international; and thirdly, LRT works to improve London Underground facilities.
There are several ways in which the Bill affects my Department. As British Rail's sponsoring Department, we must be satisfied that the powers being sought are appropriate, that safety considerations are adequately addressed and that the projects are likely to meet the appropriate investment rules. The same is true in respect of the works proposed by London Regional Transport for London Underground in which important and specific safety considerations arise from the Fennell report and less specific safety considerations also arise that relate to the relief of congestion through the enlargement of an Underground station.
We should also be concerned with the broad impact of the proposals taken together, on the existing transport system, including the road system around the King's Cross area. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton described British Rail's plan, first to link St. Pancras to the east coast main line to relieve congestion at King's Cross and secondly, to provide for the enhancement of the Thameslink service through King's Cross by using the low level station. British Rail believes that both measures are required—the first more urgently than the second—to cope with the growth in the use of those services. If Parliament grants the powers, the board will, in due course, submit the investment proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his approval. If they offer good value for money, I am sure that he will be pleased to approve them.
In principle, what is proposed in the Bill looks sensible and we support British Rail in seeking the powers at this stage. This is a further step in British Rail's plans to create a modern railway to carry traffic to and through London.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend explain something about which I have never been entirely clear? If somebody were able to present a plan that provided better value for money than British Rail's plan, would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to direct British Rail either to give over its plan or to think it out again?

Mr. Portillo: We do not yet know whether British Rail proposes to bring forward an investment case of its own. I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has wider implications encompassing the Channel link through Kent. We do not yet know if British Rail intends to bring forward an investment proposal of its own or will seek Government approval through a private sector arrangement. All I can say is that the discussions that British Rail will have with consortia will be closely followed with intense interest by the Government.
The Government are currently considering the board's commercial case for King's Cross as a second international railway station in London in preference to other possible locations. I hope that we shall have reached a conclusion on the matter by the time that the Government submit their report on the Bill to the Select Committee.
The commercial case for the low-level station may involve us in considering the traffic, both domestic and international, that would be made possible by a new rail link between London and the Channel tunnel. The reasons for the timing of the Bill have been explained and I can assure the House that granting British Rail the powers to

build this station does not prejudge the case for a new link or its route. The House would be agreeing only to British Rail's proposition that if there is to be a second central London international station at King's Cross it should be constructed in the manner indicated.
In the short term at least, international traffic could reach King's Cross by the Thameslink line rather than a new line from Kent. In addition to the proposals in the Bill to connect the low-level station to both the east coast and midland main lines, I am told that it would be comparatively straightforward to connect the west coast main line, and that this is being considered by British Rail.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister asked his officials to study the alternatives of TAUS and Stratford? If so, what reports have they made to him?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. I have explained that we have not yet approved the British Rail investment case for King's Cross, and we look forward to looking at it. If an adequate case for King's Cross is put forward by British Rail, we shall be pleased to approve it.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The Minister referred to an adequate case being put forward by British Rail for King's Cross. Has he had the opportunity to see the documents that convinced British Railways Board members that King's Cross was the right location? The reasons for its decision would have been based on comparisons between alternative termini, costings, engineering plans, environmental impact. If the Minister has seen the documents on which British Rail board members based their decision, will he place them in the House of Commons Library so that hon. Members who have to make a decision on the same issues at least have the benefit of that information?

Mr. Portillo: I return to the point that I made a few moments ago, that we have not yet considered a formal case for King's Cross.

Ms. Harman: What are we here for?

Mr. Portillo: I have tried to explain to the House that the Bill has come to the House before the decision on the investment case has been taken. That should not be a surprise to hon. Members because that point has been made a number of times.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving, way at this stage because this is what Parliament is all about. The Minister has made some important statements. Is he saying that the Government agree with this location in principle but are reserving their case on the commercial element? The Minister nods. Does he remember that not long ago the Prime Minister, at that very seat, said that the private Bill procedure was as good as, and better than, any planning inquiry? The Minister now says that the Government, without any planning inquiry, and before the Committee has met and any debate concluded, have decided in principle that, given the commercial case, King's Cross is the right location. Is that not an example of the elective dictatorship at work?

Mr. Portillo: About halfway through the hon. Gentleman's intervention I entirely lost him. Let me try to explain the position. British Rail is charged with running commercial rail services between cities and internationally.


There is to be no subsidy of the rail services provided by British Rail, either between cities or internationally, and if there is to be no subsidy from taxpayers' money there should be no interference from the Government in the choice of location for its terminals made by British Rail because that is a commercial matter. However, if the terminal to be is to be financed by British Rail—and as BR is a nationalised industry—obviously the case for its investment in one station rather than another must be convincingly made to the Government. The decision has not yet been taken but that does not make it impossible for the House to consider the case for the King's Cross Railways Bill now before us.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that I was a little too quick in making my point. The Minister has confirmed that the Government, subject to a commercial arrangement, are in favour of the location. As I explained earlier, the Prime Minister claimed that a Committee to consider a Bill was as good as any public inquiry, but an inquiry has not taken place. By giving the Bill its Second Reading tonight and giving the Government's imprimatur to the location, is not the case prejudiced because it has not been scrutinised properly? That is so unless the promoter is going to accept the location, which he has not yet said.

Mr. Portillo: From such a renowned constitutionalist, I find what the hon. Gentleman said very surprising. We are saying that British Rail is right in principle to bring forward the Bill. I intend to explain that the Government believe that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, that the Committee has an extremely important job in considering all the relevant matters and that there are some points on which the Government have doubts. If I manage to make progress with my speech I shall reach those points.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill will be widely welcomed in Leicestershire, particularly the new link from the midland main line? However, there is concern that this will not be electrified and, therefore, the link will not be used to its full extent.

Mr. Portillo: It has been suggested to me that the Bill would be welcomed in Leicestershire and also that the midland main line should be electrified. However, British Rail must consider whether it wishes to make an investment case for that. My hon. Friend should also consider that electrification is one of only a number of ways in which services on lines can be improved.

Mr. Dobson: It was so long ago that I hope I am not misquoting the Minister, but I believe that he said that he understood from British Rail that it would be possible to link the works at King's Cross to the west coast main line. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was told by British Rail as recently as Friday that it is contemplating doing that by way of a travelator more than a quarter of a mile long. When was the Minister told by British Rail that it could make a link to the west coast main line? Does British Rail envisage doing that by means of a travelator or a railway line?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me with tolerable accuracy. I said:

I am told that it would be comparatively straightforward to connect the west coast main line, and that this is being considered by BR.
I referred to a railway line, not a travelator.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister has given way generously, and I appreciate that. He said that no taxpayers' money was to be used and that the funds would come from British Rail. To what extent will property development desiderata play a part in this? Documents that I have seen suggest that British Rail wants the terminus at King's Cross because it is superior for property development and British Rail will make a lot of money out of it. That, rather than traffic considerations, weighs heavily with British Rail.

Mr. Portillo: Both property development and traffic considerations could be important. The Government will look for an economic case to be made for the station; it will include station property and traffic. I have not yet seen that case, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the proportions between the two will he.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister saying that, when considering the proposals for the railway works at King's Cross, the Government will consider property speculation on the 125 acres of surplus railway land to the north of King's Cross?

Mr. Portillo: No, I was saying that the question whether the low-level station is viable has to do with the traffic that might be generated by it and the property development that might be associated with it. As I said in my opening paragraph, the railway lands around King's Cross are outwith this measure and will be considered through the normal processes by the submission of a planning application to the London borough of Camden.
I turn now to the implications of the Bill's proposals for the Underground. The Bill will allow the present Underground ticket hall to be enlarged, and a new one to be constructed to serve the deep tube lines and BR's Thameslink and channel tunnel traffic. It also provides for a series of new subways between the various platforms, ticket halls and the surface. These works are needed to implement one of the recommendations of the Fennell investigation into the King's Cross fire. Mr. Fennell recommended that London Underground should build a direct subway link between the deep tube lines and the Metropolitan and Circle lines, or provide alternative satisfactory means of relieving the serious congestion. He considered that an important recommendation.
Although the detailed appraisal of this aspect of the proposals has yet to be completed and presented to the Department, the Government support these improvements in principle. I am sure that the House will be pleased to support measures designed to relieve congestion in one of the busiest stations in the London Underground system—

Mr. Dobson: Have British Rail or London Underground—or the two between them—calculated the net effect of the improvements set against the additional 60,000 passengers that they contemplate? It sounds to me possible that the place will be more overcrowded as a result of the proposals.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman asks me a question which is better directed to the promoters of the Bill. It would probably be more appropriately asked in Committee than on Second Reading.
As far as the impact of the proposals on the road network is concerned, we are discussing the technical issues with British Rail, the King's Cross developers and the London boroughs of Camden and Islington with a view to identifying the separate and combined effects of the development and the railway works. Our first priority will be to judge the overall effect of all the proposals on the trunk roads for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the highway authority, and on the designated roads for which he is the approving authority for borough proposals. We also need to consider the wider implications for other borough roads in the area.
When taking these discussions forward, we shall be able to draw in the first instance on traffic information in the document supporting the developers' planning application to the London borough of Camden and in the environmental impact assessment which BR will submit in relation to its proposals.
Our main aim will be to safeguard the efficient movement of traffic on the strategic network of trunk and designated roads in the area around King's Cross.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister think it right that the House should be asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill when British Rail has not yet allowed hon. Members sight of, or published, the environmental impact assessment of these proposals? Should we not have those plans before we are asked to vote?

Mr. Portillo: That is another question for the promoters, not for me. The Bill must pass through several stages, as the hon. Lady knows, and the environmental impact assessment will be made available during the passage of the Bill. It concerns the Government, too, as I shall explain in a moment.
Some improvements will be possible with the introduction of better traffic management techniques, but if the additional traffic demand is heavy, changes to the trunk road, particularly at the junction of Euston road with Pentonville road and York way, might be necessary to accommodate it. A former GLC scheme for this junction, the St. Chad's place scheme, has been safeguarded. We are reviewing it to see whether it will be adequate, given the proposed developments. We would expect to submit a progress report on the road issues to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton referred to an environmental impact assessment which British Rail has commissioned in connection with the railway works in the Bill. I understand that it will be available well before the Select Committee begins considering petitions against the Bill. The Government welcome the fact that British Rail has chosen to carry out this assessment. Although the European Community directive on environmental impact assessment does not, strictly speaking, apply to works authorised by a private Bill, BR has chosen to operate within the spirit of the directive and of the recent Joint Committee report on private Bill procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was present for parts of the debate on 20 April on private Bill procedure, and although I was abroad on official business that day, I have read Hansard with great interest. The

Government are considering how best to proceed in the light of the Joint Committee's report and of the debate, but the House will recognise that for the time being there is no alternative to the private Bill procedure. Speaking for myself, I cannot regard it as bad that a project of this size and importance for the national railway system should be considered by Parliament, rather than exclusively by a local planning inspector and Ministers of whatever party. Doubts in that regard were expressed by hon. Members on both sides and, as I have said, we are carefully considering all the issues raised by the report and the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised just over three weeks ago—

Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the Minister accept that no one on the Opposition Benches argues that either Parliament or the planning procedure should be used? We are arguing for both—for a proper planning inquiry and then parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady makes her point, but I am not sure whether going through the processes twice, with all the delay that that involves, is in the best interests of anyone, including the objectors. As it happens, in this case we are dealing with two closely related matters—the railway works in the Bill and the broader development in the King's Cross area. On the latter, there will be normal planning procedures involving the submission of an application to the London borough of Camden. To that extent, the hon. Lady may be contented, because there will be both a planning procedure and a private Bill procedure.
The works proposed will affect several listed buildings in the area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned about clause 19, the effect of which is to disapply the special controls that normally apply to listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. My right hon. Friend accepts that exceptional circumstances may justify overriding the normal statutory conservation safeguards, but he does not want that done at the expense of proper debate, for purposes not directly and specifically connected with British Rail's operational needs. He is currently in discussion with the promoters to establish the precise effect of their proposals on the listed buildings and conservation areas and will be considering the position further after consulting English Heritage. I understand that, apart from the two main line stations, which are listed grade I, there are seven buildings or structures listed grade II which are potentially affected by British Rail's plans, and two conservation areas.
My right hon. Friend had previously attached some weight to the fact that English Heritage was petitioning against the clause, since that would, in his view, have ensured that when the Bill was in Committee, Parliament would have the benefit of its independent and expert advice. In view of the decision by the Court of Referees to disallow English Heritage's petition, he will now be looking to the promoters to give satisfactory assurances—preferably by way of an additional clause in the Bill—that they will consult English Heritage; that they will give it adequate opportunities to record any buildings which have to be demolished; and that generally they will pay special regard to the desirability of preserving, so far as is practicable, the buildings and other features which give the


area its special interest and character. Subject to that, he will be considering whether to report on the clause, and in what terms.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is correct to remind the House that the Court of Referees did not accept the locus standi of English Heritage. That happened because British Rail challenged locus on the part of English Heritage, as it did on the part of a large number of other potential petitioners. What confidence can the House have that BR will give careful consideration to all the matters to which the Minister referred, given the way in which BR arrogantly and aggressively stopped people who were able to come before the Committee from appearing and giving the benefit of their advice?

Mr. Portillo: I am responsible neither for BR's action in challenging the locus standi of certain petitioners nor for the decisions of the Court of Referees. The Secretary of State for the Environment has responsibilities in those matters, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that the Government will look for assurances, preferably by way of an additional clause in the Bill, and I hope that that will be of comfort to him on that point, which clearly concerns him.

Ms. Harman: I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that BR behaved wrongly in objecting to the locus standi of English Heritage. Will he bear in mind that many other organisations and individuals petitioned against the Bill, including myself on behalf of my constituents, and were also steamrollered out by BR's objection to locus? Will he, in addition to taking up the case of English Heritage, consider the cases of all those who petitioned and whose petitions were disgracefully ruled out on the basis of that challenge?

Mr. Portillo: No. The hon. Lady wilfully misunderstands what I said. I do not criticise British Rail in the matter; I simply said that I had no responsibility for it. I do not see how BR could have been wrong to mount a challenge, the Court of Referees having found its challenge to be in order. These are matters for the Court of Referees, although the Secretary of State for the Environment has special responsibilities which he will discharge in the manner I described.
I have indicated support in principle for the Bill. It is of course for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. There remain against the Bill a great many petitions which raise important matters and which reflect genuine and widely felt concern about the proposals. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and will have the advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed, in the usual way, to Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr. Peter Snape: The confusion surrounding the Bill has been added to, rather than cleared away, by the Minister's contribution. The

newspapers tell us that the hon. Gentleman is the coming man of the Government. I have no wish to blight his future career, but I warn him that he must do better in future if he is to live up to the rave reviews that he has been receiving from the national press.
As my hon. Friends—and to be fair, some Conservative Members—have said, there is widespread unhappiness about the procedures that have been adopted towards the Bill. The Minister agreed that hon. Members in all parts of the House felt that the private Bill procedure was being abused from the point of view of this project. As for the management of British Rail, there is, to put it at its mildest, widespread unhappiness in the House about the way in which it has conducted itself in the conflicting and contradictory stories that have eminated from that source.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) spoke of the project being a partnership between the public and private sector. We would have no objection to that, if it were true. The problem with the Bill, as the Minister pointed out, is that the contribution from the private sector will be all-important because it will enable British Rail to meet the investment criteria laid down by the Government.
That being the problem, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that BR owned a considerable amount of land at King's Cross which, in his opinion—and he should know, because he is the constituency Member—would provide an adequate site for a new railway station, if that were what BR was seeking. But that is not what is being sought by BR. It is seeking to maximise revenues on that valuable inner-city site to meet the investment criteria laid down by the Government, which will allow BR to build an underground station catering supposedly for international trade, supposedly to all parts of the country.
In explaining why BR had opted for that course, the hon. Member for Acton conceded that, when BR gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Channel tunnel, its forecast for cross-Channel passenger traffic was too low. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) might have something to say privately to him about that because, when giving evidence to that Committee, BR made a number of statements which it subsequently contradicted. It told the Committee that there was no need for a high-speed rail link and that the Waterloo terminal would be sufficient for international passengers until the end of the century.
BR then changed its mind and said that its forecasts were too low. BR was cross-examined on a number of occasions when giving evidence to the Select Committee about the accuracy of its forecasts, but was adamant at that time that they were correct. What has changed since? Has BR been reading the Eurotunnel prospectus, which said that its forecasts were too low? Has BR been talking to its counterparts in SNCF, who felt at that time that the forecasts where too low? Or could it be that, to minimise opposition to the original Bill, BR deliberately pitched its forecasts at a low level, simply to get the Bill through the House? I do not know the answer, and the hon. Member who is acting for the promoters shows no signs of telling us. It would not be unusual, to say the least, for the British Rail management to mislead on these issues.

Mr. Rowe: If we are charitable enough to assume that British Rail was incompetent, rather than conspiratorial, in its forecasting, does that not bear out the criticism of


many of us about the fact that BR has remained adamantly opposed to accepting advice on any aspect of its great Euro-rail investment from any other source, be it the Swiss, the French or the Germans, even though the figures on which BR is now proceeding appear to be much closer to those of the French?

Mr. Snape: That is a valid question, and the hon. Gentleman should address it to the hon. Member for Acton who is acting on behalf of the promoters. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that it has been incompetence on the part of the BR management. Not that I question its incompetence; I worked for it for too long to believe that it is anything other than incompetent when it comes to making decisions of this kind. But we should not ignore the fact that, as well as incompetence, the BR management over the years has been adept at what has been called obfuscation about statistics relating to its business.
I am speaking of the railway management that, following the 1955 modernisation plan, decided to operate a multiplicity of different types of diesel locomotives. These were all stabled next to steam locomotives, with the inevitable maintenance problems that were bound to arise. It is the management that gave us massive marshalling yards for wagonload traffic from one end of Britain to another, only entirely to drop wagonload traffic thereafter. It is the management that tells us that the best way forward for the operation of passenger services in and around the capital is one-person operation locomotives and unmanned stations. That system gives the malicious an opportunity to board a train at a station which has no staff, to mug the passengers while the train is proceeding under the control of one person and to leave the train at another unmanned station.
Apart from the moral considerations of a management that approaches its duty in that way, that is not an economical way of running a train service. It is possible for people to board trains at unmanned stations, to ride on OPO trains and to alight from those trains at unmanned stations. The motivation for some individuals to pay their fare is perhaps somewhat lacking.
I am talking of the management that comes forward with a fresh barrage of statistics and supposed facts to convince us that the Bill is worthy of support.
A thread that has united us all, apart from the promoters and the Minister for Public Transport, whose somewhat confused contribution suggested that he is a man with a future behind him, is a mistrust of British Rail's management. That includes its intentions for King's Cross, and especially the way in which that station is to be operated for through international services to other parts of Britain.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to take the conspiratorial notion a stage further. Does he agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed with the Bill without having the Government's views made known to us on other routes? Does he agree also that it would be wrong for us to adjudicate on the Bill without knowing anything of British Rail's intention for freight and freight clients? I speak as a man with only a past to which he can look forward.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is not true. I am sure that he is not seeking my sympathy, and he will not get it.
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know. British Rail has confused itself, so God knows what it does to the rest of us. The latest epistle from British Rail—I refer to its press release of Saturday 6 May—refers to freight using the existing north London line. It is especially vague about through passenger services to the north of England, especially to the north-west and to the part of the country which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have the honour to represent in the west midlands. I know that that bothers you considerably, as it bothers me.
British Rail's current view—I stress "current"—is that it intends to cater for railway passengers from other parts of the country. If we are to accept that, the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) should be given a little more consideration by the hon. Member for Acton. My hon. Friend referred to passengers to and from south Wales. He spoke also of a letter from the Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales—I have a copy of it in front of me—on the future of services into Paddington and connections with Channel tunnel services to any part of the continent or with through services, if they are to operate, that will use the King's Cross terminal.
The lack of strategic planning is central to the flaws in British Rail's planning generally. There is a proposal for a dedicated rail link between Paddington and Heathrow that will be operated by the British Airports Authority. That does not give much comfort to those who wish to join the cross-Channel services. Sir Norman Payne and his BAA colleagues are obsessed with sites for Tie Rack, Sock Shop and even a chain called Knicker Box Ltd. It is hard to imagine that they will be too concerned about the impact of that dedicated rail line on a travel pattern that will involve the Channel tunnel project.
The central London rail study was referred to a few days ago by the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that there are plans for a surface link—perhaps it will be a sub-surface link, but these matters confuse me—between Paddington and Liverpool Street. There is not much sign there of any coherent strategic plan for knitting these projects into the cross-Channel tunnel services, which are supposedly to pass through the new King's Cross international station.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the lack of coherent planning of underground railways in London. He has spoken also of connections to the London-north-western main line. From Stratford to Willesden there is an electrified railway line which projects onwards to Acton, Central and Acton, South. The direct route from Stratford to the south Wales main line would join the Great Western main line at Acton main line station. Is that not ironic?

Mr. Snape: That is an historic irony. My personal view is, that the great advantage of long-distance railway services is that they run from city centre to city centre. That has always been perceived as the great advantage of the railways when they are in competition with aviation, for example. By the very nature of things, airports are well away from the centres of towns or cities that they are supposed to serve.
We are told that the advantage of the King's Cross project for the rest of the country will be the through services, if they come to exist. Let us move away from


south Wales and the west, with the inadequacies of the proposed provision of services for those areas, and consider Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Carlisle, and the west coast main line. It has always been our understanding that British Rail intended to build and electrify a spur that would join the east coast main line with the west coast main line. It would allow through continental train services to pass via the new King's Cross international station to the parts of the country which I have just mentioned.
As long ago as 10 January, the chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Robert Reid, wrote to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on the spur project. I came upon the letter because it was sent to the West Midlands regional forum, on which I have the honour to serve as chairman of the west midlands group of Labour Members. In that respect, the letter is in the public domain. In his letter, Sir Robert referred to through passenger trains to the west coast main line and stated:
The current Parliamentary Bill"—
it was not current at the time but never mind, that was just one inaccuracy—
concerned with the redevelopment proposals for King's Cross and St. Pancras does contain provision for a sub-surface station. If King's Cross were to be selected as the site for the second London station for International Passenger Trains, this facility would be used for that purpose.
It would be difficult to imagine any other purpose for the facility.
That being so, I am not sure what Sir Robert was getting at when he wrote that part of his letter. He added:
So far as International Passenger Services beyond London are concerned, if the business demand does support the investment in the trains, it would be the Board's intention to provide rail connections from the sub-surface station at King's Cross to the East and West Coast Main Lines.
That proposal appears straightforward, and it was one accepted by the West Midlands regional forum, which included little me, at its face value—given that it was dated 10 January 1989.
Subsequently, two of my colleagues wrote to the Department of Transport about that matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) received a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport, while my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) unaccountably received a reply from the Minister for Public Transport. Evidently, Privy Councillors write only to Privy Councillors, which is something else that I did not know. Personally, I do not mind receiving a letter from the Minister, provided that it is clearer than his speech this evening.
Remarkably, the letter dated 3 April from the Secretary of State and that dated 7 April from the Minister of State both include the following paragraph:
I understand that British Rail's choice of Kings Cross as a second London terminal for Channel Tunnel passenger trains is not intended to prejudice the possibility of through passenger trains to and from the West Midlands. BR are considering whether to seek further powers for a new direct link from Kings Cross to the West Coast Main Line, or whether to retain their original plan of routing such trains via the West London Line.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) there are now three options.

Mr. Spearing: The third being White City?

Mr. Snape: I shall come to that possibility in a moment.
We are now presented with a choice of three different routes. There might be an electrified spur joining the east coast and west coast main line, or we may have to settle for the revamped west London line. Given the likely congestion that would occur once full services got under way, we in the west midlands do not find that a particularly attractive prospect. The third alternative may be ceremonially unveiled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—a travelator connecting King's Cross with Euston station. It is conceivable that, in the timetable for that brave new world after 1993, there may be through trains indicated between Birmingham and Brussels, Paris, or any of the other exotic locations about which I know very little.

Mr. John Prescott: By train, anyway.

Mr. Snape: And he is on my side!
How will those new services be advertised if a travelator is used to connect the new King's Cross with the old—or not so old, because it was built only 20 years ago—Euston station? Will advertisements show an escalator, or will they show a man—and given the sexist nature of the British Railways Board, presumably it will be a man—bent double with suitcases and buckets and spades, stepping on to an escalator connecting the two stations? Will we be told what connecting services will be provided for the rest of the country?
In view of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Acton—I must not be hypocritical, because he did his best—it appears that no one knows what connecting services will be provided, and no one can say whether through services to other parts of the country will be provided.
I draw the Minister's attention the instruction in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras and for Islington, South and Finsbury, which refers to the need for the Committee on the Bill to
take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals.
I do not know why the Minister did not refer to that instruction during the course of his very unenlightening speech. He may argue that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 includes an instruction to the British Railways Board, introduced by the Opposition and accepted by the Government, that such a report be published by the end of this year. That instruction does not contradict section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, but reinforces it.

Mr. Portillo: Not so. It would duplicate it.

Mr. Snape: The Minister says, sotto voce, "Not so," that such an instruction would duplicate the Act. It would certainly clarify it. Such an instruction would at least force British Rail to come clean about their intentions and would give right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to make a proper and valid judgment about whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed. The Minister says that such matters should be discussed in Committee. Tonight, we are talking about—in railway parlance, appropriately enough—giving the green light in principle to a Bill that will supposedly bring


about through services to all parts of the country, yet if the Bill receives a Second Reading, the House has no way of knowing whether that happy situation will come about.

Mr. Rowe: I very strongly support the hon. Gentleman's comments. If we wait until the end of the year before we receive any coherent plan from British Rail about the proposed connections—assuming that such a thing is possible—the Bill will pass through the House of Commons before we have an opportunity to debate those proposals.

Mr. Snape: The central point of the argument is that the House is expected to pass the Bill without knowing British Rail's intentions. I have worked for British Rail all my working life, until I came here for a break. Putting aside my insults about British Rail management, I hope never to work for British Rail again. Under the new rules and regulations, I would probably be fired anyway for saying what I have tonight. It is unacceptable to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House not to receive assurances from British Rail on which we can rely. So far, we have witnessed only a series of contradictory statements, assertions and press releases.
In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke about road congestion in and around St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. Any right hon. or hon. Member who spends any time travelling around this city will know just how congested is the Marylebone road in the vicinity of those two stations—and the likely impossibility of the extra traffic likely to be generated by the scheme having free passage up and down Marylebone road and Euston road in particular and in the side streets also.
The press release from British Rail embargoed to 6 May, to which I have already referred, makes the specific statement:
The new proposals are designed to meet all these demands"—
that is, the architectural and other demands—
in a building of outstanding architectural merit"—
I presume that British Rail means the new concrete awning that is to be erected—
at the same time as improving access to and from road transport.
The House has been told by the Minister that no roads surveys have yet been completed. He said, reasonably and accurately enough, that the impact of the proposals on road access and the road network has still to be measured, yet British Rail's press release presumes that its proposals will be beneficial.
Mention has been made of the proposed new terminal's advantages for the midland main line. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Acton would explain what advantages there will be for those living along the route of the midland main line. If it is not intended to electrify that line, then, given the loading gauge problems of the so-called wide lines, through trains from European cities and from cities along the midland main line are unlikely, to say the least. I have said that through trains between European cities and the western main line are at best doubtful under the somewhat nebulous proposals we have just heard about.
The support given to the Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House is, I think, reasonable enough, provided that British Rail comes clean and tells us what it is about. I fear that, if it fails to do so—if, as it appears, it has

briefed the hon. Member for Acton insufficiently, it will fail to do so—we shall be asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that asks more questions than it answers.
I hope that at least some of those answers will be provided before midnight. If they are not, I know that many of my hon. Friends will—to say the least—have considerable misgivings about the Bill's veracity as it relates to the future of the rail network, not only in London but in Britain as a whole.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: We have all been much entertained by the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but I am not sure that much light has been cast on the subject. I sometimes suspect that the hon. Gentleman's intention is more to confuse than to clarify. In his remarks about the management of British Rail—after all, they went back 30 years—I heard one of the most convincing arguments for BR's privatisation that I have ever heard on the Floor of the House, although it may have been advanced unwittingly and interpreted in a different context from that intended by the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to speak only briefly, on a fairly narrow aspect of the Bill. It is clear that views are divided between two camps. One view—which I deeply respect, but do not intend to comment on because I have not the necessary knowledge—concerns the immediate geographical and environmental impact of the proposals, and I understand the strength of feeling behind those arguments. Other hon. Members, among whom I count myself, are more concerned about the wider strategic implications, a concern which underlined the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister.
I am anxious that the benefits of the development of the Channel tunnel and all that goes with it should extend beyond London, and we should ask whether that development will enable international trains to run beyond London. Let me say unashamedly that my interests extend to the east coast main line link to the north-east of England and, of course, to Scotland. But it is because I believe that the benefits should extend as widely as possible that I am attracted—in principle—to the Bill: having listened carefully to what was said earlier about Stratford, I believe that the choice of King's Cross improves the chances of establishing good through links from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and to Scotland.

Mr. Chris Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked British Rail how many through trains will go through King's Cross and up to Scotland? The answer, I am afraid, is, not very many.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. As I have said, I support the Bill in principle; obviously there is to be a second terminal in London, and I want to ensure that it is in the position most likely to facilitate the extension of links with the north and Scotland. In my judgment the Bill achieves that. I entirely agree, however, that we want rather more assurances than we have received.
I believe that the chosen site is better than others in London, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman anticipated me, because the question that he has asked is the next point in the notes that I have before me. Ii probably cannot be answered fully tonight, but, if my


support for the Bill—in principle—is to continue, I should like to know how many through trains will run to the north and Scotland. There has been a certain amount of vagueness about that.
My next point is also a general one. I shall not go into detail, as much has been said on the subject this evening, but it is equally important that there are adequate cross-London links to provide a means of connection. A good deal of long-distance passenger traffic will not use the Channel link for the whole distance. People will want to catch connecting trains to places other than the north of England and Scotland.
I understand that the total cost will be some £574 million, a huge amount for a single project, and I hope that that will not be at the expense of other British Rail programmes. There is already considerable competition for British Rail's investment. I should like to mention two aspects, one connected directly with the cross-Channel link.
If the cross-Channel link is to be successful and areas distant from the Channel are to benefit, we must ensure the development of an efficient freight terminal in Scotland. I do not want that to be put at risk by developments elsewhere. At Coatbridge, a site that I believe is being discussed as a possible major freight terminal in Scotland, we already have a freightliner terminal. Nevertheless, I believe that a great deal more study is needed, and I hope that none of that or any subsequent investment will be put in jeopardy.
Extra investment will certainly be needed. If there is a new terminal it will have to be connected, at some expense, with the trunk road and motorway systems. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Minister—and I hope that British Rail will pay attention—that proper consideration should be given to refrigeration facilities at the terminals. The link will provide Scotland with a great opportunity, given our exports of high-quality food. There must be proper handling facilities, but as far as I know no such facilities are being considered at present.
My final point also concerns investment. The east coast route is being electrified and will shortly be completed as far as Edinburgh, but that leaves a huge gap from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. There is no doubt that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe: it is a very busy city and has one of the lowest unemployment levels in Scotland. The oil industry is picking up, and it will continue for many years to come.
Many of us are worried by British Rail's rejection—so far—of proposals to continue the electrification beyond Edinburgh. The investment south of London and in the Channel tunnel will be very much bigger than that north of Edinburgh. It is galling to us that additional investment should be denied to us when so much money is being spent elsewhere. Scotland believes that the links with the Channel tunnel will provide opportunities for us, but we shall be able to take advantage of them only if the links are provided in the most effective way. One of the effective ways is to have a terminal at King's Cross. However, it must not be at the expense of investment elsewhere—in particular at the expense of the two areas that I have mentioned.

Mr. Frank Dobson: In case anybody should be confused, let me say right at the outset that I am utterly opposed to the King's Cross Railways Bill. It directly affects my constituency and my constituents. I oppose it, too, for reasons connected with London as a whole and for national reasons.
I object most strongly to the fact that this most important transport development, which is of national strategic importance, is to be decided by means of the private Bill procedure. No other democracy in the world has anything like the private Bill procedure. It is a means whereby well-off and powerful organisations get Parliament to set them above the law of the land. In a sense, it is statutory endorsement of not obeying the law.
A major decision such as this, which will directly affect the route of the lines from the Channel tunnel to London, and possibily the lines carrying traffic beyond London, should be determined by a private Bill promoted by British Rail. It was quite clear from the few meetings that I had with British Rail about the Channel tunnel that it was incapable of organising a conspiracy; it did not have the faintest idea what it intended to do. That has become dramatically obvious, as the debate has continued, from its conflicting promises and assertions.
It is improper for a decision of this importance to be taken by a railway operating company, whether it be publicly or privately owned. That decision should be taken by the Government. God knows, this Government are happy to poke their noses into lots of things. I do not know why they are unwilling to take strategic decisions of this kind, which affect my constituency and Kent.
We need a thoroughgoing public inquiry into the proposition and into all the links proposed by British Rail. We should not proceed by means of this hole-in-the-corner set-up, known as the private Bill procedure. British Rail has used salami tactics rather than the dance of the seven veils tactics, suggested by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
When British Rail first said that it intended to introduce a King's Cross Railways Bill, it said that it had nothing to do with the Channel tunnel. After the Bill was introduced, after all the rowing in Kent and after the line that it finally decided that it favoured ended up—for some extraordinary reason—at King's Cross, British Rail finally had to admit that the King's Cross Railways Bill had something to do with the Channel tunnel. Everybody had known that all along, but—lyingly—British Rail had denied it. British Rail used the fact that it is not directly connected with the Channel tunnel—so it says—to challenge objections from those who will be affected by the line to King's Cross. It is preposterous that British Rail has been permitted to proceed in this way.
British Rail has told me and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that in the second Bill which is to be introduced it proposes to facilitate further works all the way through Kent and south-east London that will affect other land and that will lead to other purchases in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
However, British Rail is not prepared to tell us what works it intends to carry out in our constituencies. Even


this Bill does not include proper coverage of British Rail's proposals for King's Cross, let alone anywhere else. It is a preposterous approach.
The background to British Rail's approach to King's Cross-St. Pancras—that vast complex—is that 125 acres of land are surplus to railway requirements. That land is owned by British Rail or its friends—associated, or previously associated, organisations. [Interruption.] Yes, British Rail still has some friends, but not very many in my area.
During the time that I have been a Member of Parliament—and before that when I was on the local council—I have run all sorts of advice services; I have received representations from people who wanted land on which to build houses. I remind the House that 7,000 to 8,000 families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in central London and that there are 15,000 homeless families in central London. People have told me that they would like somewhere to live. Others have said that they would like more schools, and bigger schools. Children and young people have told me that they would like to have a decent athletics track in central London. Other people have said that they would like bigger clinics or another park. In all the years that I have tried to represent the area, no person has ever come to me and said, "I want an office block."
However, British Rail proposes to devote most of the surplus 125 acres to office development that nobody wants, other than an organisation whose real name ought to be Inter-Galactic Property Speculation plc, which has linked itself to British Rail with a view to making a bomb out of it and damn anyone who lives in the area and damn anyone who has got any needs in the area.
The whole object of British Rail's approach to King's Cross is to maintain as much as possible of the 125 acres of property speculation land sacrosanct and safe from any demands that may be made on it. Not content with having 125 acres for that purpose, the Bill would allow British Rail to buy another 17 acres and knock down what is on most of that land; then it would have another 17 acres for more property speculation. That is one of the motives for those proposals, and is one reason why we should not support them.

Mr. Rowe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Confederation of British Industry has estimated that if all the office accommodation that British Rail is hoping to build on those acres is built, the effect will be to over-provide for the expected need for office space in London by nearly 5 per cent.

Mr Dobson: As my constituency contains State house, Centre Point, Euston tower and God knows where, I am quite prepared to believe that there will be a surplus of office accommodation, which we are pretty used to in my area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Bill's proposals will result in 326 people losing their homes. We have enough homeless people in my area already without adding another 326. Some 59 shops and 130 small businesses will go and over 2,000 local jobs will be lost.
The purpose of the Bill is not to allow British Rail to build a wonderful station that will be a credit to Britain and will make people travelling through the Channel tunnel to London say, "What a great place London is."

The purpose is to allow British Rail to build a gigantic dump of a cavern underneath the existing main line station and call it the "Euro-station".
I believe that British Rail's proposals will be dangerous. Firefighters, who have a little direct experience of King's Cross—certainly more than anyone at British Rail—believe that the new complex will be even more dangerous than the current one. It will lead to increased overcrowding. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the Bill does not contain a single proposal for improving the shifting of passengers to and from the King's Cross-St. Pancras complex. Some improvement in the layout of the stations may be made, but British Rail is not proposing an additional tube line or extra tube trains, and I do not believe all the garbage about improved bus services.
The object of the proposed digging at King's Cross is to preserve intact surplus railway land for speculative development, which is the wrong approach. Although there are some relatively prosperous people in my constituency, as there are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the people living in the areas bordering King's Cross and St. Pancras are not prosperous. They already live in an area which is full of stinking fumes and much traffic noise. It is not a pleasant place to live, and British Rail's proposals will make it infinitely more unpleasant, especially while the works are going on.
Of all the proposals that affect my constituency, the one that most galls me and most typifies the cavalier attitude of British Rail is the one to destroy the Camley street nature park next to Regent's canal. The land next to he canal used to be derelict, but was transformed by the joint efforts of the Greater London council, Camden council and the London Wildlife Trust. It has a lake, study centre, birds, fish, frogs and other amphibians. It has much shrubbery and is attended by thousands of children. It is used by local schools and respected by local children. Nowhere else in the area has no vandalism, damage, graffiti or fighting. It offers the local children something that is unobtainable anywhere else in central London. It is treasured by them because it is a treasure, but British Rail wants to smash it. We often accuse young people of mindless vandalism, but British Rail's proposals are precision vandalism. It is locating the line through the nature park not because it is convenient for the railway but because it is built on land that British Rail does not own, and therefore will not prejudice the land that it intends for speculative office development.
The only reason why the Camley street nature park is to be destroyed by British Rail is to maintain intact the land it wants for its rotten, stinking, lousy, speculative office development. I do not want to hear claptrap suggesting that it is necessary to use that land, or that the park will be restored later in some grand form. We all know that we can place no value on British Rail's estimates, but its best estimate is that there will be no Camley street replacement for five years. That is one primary school lifetime for children in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Teachers and volunteers have worked to provide the nature park, yet British Rail is prepared to destroy the park because it suits it and saves it a bit of money.
I will now move away from the narrow, parochial interests that I am proud to represent when dealing with Camley street. Let us look at the proposed station. Will it


be a satisfactory development? The King's Cross-St. Pancras complex is already the biggest transport interchange in Britain. It has two main line stations and the Thameslink line and, as if that was not enough, it has the Metropolitan, Circle, Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines. Although it is a vast complex, it is most unsatisfactory, as its users know. Every working day, about 270,000 people use the complex. The Bill proposes to add between 40,000 and 60,000 extra people to that complex from the Underground station every working day. The proposals will add to the number of users, but will not increase by an iota the capacity of the existing system to get those people away from the place to which the Euro-trains have brought them.
I speak as an open and dedicated advocate of the Channel tunnel. I have always believed that it was a good idea and should be rail based. It will be good for the country and good for the railway system, but it is crucial that it must not stop in London. I agree wholly with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who says that it is necessary that the links go to the north, the midlands, Scotland, the west, the south-west and Wales. It is crucial that good services are provided linking the Channel tunnel with all those places. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve that. The present proposals do not have the capacity to do what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
When I heard what British Rail was saying to hon. Members from the midlands, north and Scotland about its commitment to through connections to those parts, I drafted what I regarded as a not unreasonable instruction to the Committee. I said that the Committee should
take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals.
I got in touch with the agents for the promoters, who duly got in touch with their principals—if that word, spelt in another way, can be attributed to British Rail. I asked whether they would be prepared to accept the instruction, which, after all, only instructs the Committee to check that British Rail can do what it is telling hon. Members from outside London it will do. The instruction should have been acceptable, but British Rail said that it could not accept it.
I raised the matter with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who referred to it today. He took the matter up with British Rail and was instructed by BR —if that is how we should describe the relationship—that it still would not accept the instruction. I hope that hon. Members who represent seats in the midlands, the north or Scotland will join us in voting for the instruction to make British Rail do what it says it will do, however they vote on the Bill itself.

Mr. Tredinnick: The House will know that I represent a midlands constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that schedule 1 to the Bill—containing works 01 and 02, which I understand provide for a link between the midlands main line and the new international terminal—does not, in fact, guarantee that service? My firm understanding is that they would provide that service.

Mr. Dobson: I am not a railway engineer, although some of those who have produced loony projections that they have gone back on after a couple of years have been railway engineers, so perhaps it is not such a disadvantage.
I believe that, in the end, the proposals will result in a bottleneck rather than a way through because they are not adequate to the task. But I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point specifically, except to say that unless the midland main line is electrified I cannot envisage any possibility of British Rail laying on through trains from Milan or wherever to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield and I do not think that it has any plans to electrify the line at the moment. I cannot imagine that the trains will change locomotives at King's Cross, as that would be even more complicated than the present proposals.
Some of my hon. Friends—I imagine that this has also happened to Conservative Members from the north-west —have been told all sorts of wondrous stories about through connections. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) outlined how the proposals have changed, but none of the changes has been greater than that discovered by my hon. Friend the Memberfor Islington, South and Finsbury when he met the management of British Rail as recently as last Friday. My hon. Friend discovered that the through connection to the west midlands involved a travelator—I suppose that we all have a rough idea of what that might mean—from King's Cross to Euston station. That is the through connection that British Rail is contemplating for the benefit of those who live in the north-west.
I do not know where the travelator will run. It cannot run under Euston road because the Metropolitan and Circle lines run there. There are some fairly big things under St. Pancras station, which just happens to be between King's Cross and Euston. I know for a fact that the British library goes down six storeys below ground level. It will be a fairly deep travelator that gets under that. It is stupid, and entirely typical of British Rail's attitude to the proposal, that it should propose a travelator when it has not thought for 10 seconds about what route it would take.
My suggested instruction to the Committee refers to freight. Are we to have freight on the travelator as well —containers, followed by people with luggage? That is a preposterous idea. British Rail should be ashamed of itself for putting it forward.

Ms. Harman: Perhaps my hon. Friend might enlighten the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Will refrigerated freight go along the travelator at the same time as everything else?

Mr. Dobson: That is probably going a bit too far. Perhaps some of the people who put forward loony propositions should be put in a refrigerator and allowed to cool down.
I understand, sympathise with and support the desire of hon. Members who represent the north of London for fast, reliable and frequent train connections to and from the Channel tunnel, but I do not believe that the Bill will make that possible. Because of my doubts, I hope that, at the very least, they will join Opposition Members in voting for the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I have put down. That


is the only way of ensuring that British Rail will demonstrate to the Committee that it will do what it claims it will do.
In summary, as presently put forward, the measure will do substantial damage to the people whom I was elected to represent. It will do substantial damage to the education of many primary school children whose parents my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I were elected to represent. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to think that that is not so. For their biology teaching and so on, primary schools in the area have become dependent on the Camley street nature park, which provides a facility that they cannot obtain elsewhere. Under this proposal, it will disappear for at least five years. The proposal will knock down houses, get rid of jobs, cause traffic congestion and produce a totally unsatisfactory underground welcome for anyone coming to London from abroad.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a good case for his constituents. What would he say to the constituents of hon. Members such as myself who represent provincial cities in the north, north-west and north-east? Would he say that the good intentions of British Rail can be tested only by the acceptance of his instruction and that, unless that instruction is accepted, the Bill should be opposed to make sure that, before it is represented to the House, the intention of the instruction is completely accepted by British Rail?

Mr. Dobson: That is certainly my position, but I would not wish to push it on those who are broadly sympathetic to the proposals.
British Rail's proposal will not provide a satisfactory station for anyone. It will lead to danger and overcrowding in the area and, as I have made clear, will not do the job that British Rail is telling people north of London that it will do in providing a proper through station that can provide a fast, frequent and reliable service to the Channel tunnel. If hon. Members feel obliged, for one reason or another, to vote for the Bill, I hope that they will join in supporting the instruction—I cannot imagine that anybody would have a logical objection to it—and at least ensure that British Rail does what it says it is attempting to do. However, as it has not done a lot of what it claims it intended to do in other aspects of the development, I do not think that we can take its word. That is why the instruction has been tabled. Anyone who takes seriously the undertakings that British Rail has been attempting to give will be able to make British Rail take those undertakings seriously only if the instruction is approved.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is entirely appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who is so well-known for his attachment to that most private form of transport, the bicycle, should have been chosen to present the Bill on behalf of an organisation which, without his efforts—to some extent, I am glad to say, supported by me—would have totally eliminated all services for bicyclists.
It is important, especially as so many hon. Friends are not present tonight, to emphasise that I believe firmly in the crucial importance of spreading the benefits and the burdens of the Channel tunnel to all parts of the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members believe that to do so it is

essential that the Bill be enacted in the form in which it is presented tonight. However, as we have already heard, that is by no means a necessary condition, and I shall return to that point later.
The private Bill procedure, which we have already heard graphically described by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members as wholly inappropriate for work on this scale, is not something that we should apply to this proposition. The whole business of striking out people who have a perfectly valid interest in the Bill by challenging their locus standi has proved to be a negation of their opportunity to make their point at the place where it matters most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who is abroad on parliamentary business at the moment and therefore cannot be here, has asked me to emphasise on his behalf his clear understanding that his constituents feel that they have been considerably deprived of their opportunity to make their points in full by the deletion of their locus standi at the instance of British Rail.
Private Bills are a 19th century device invented to get railway Bills through quickly. It is ironic that in the 19th century the level of compensation was, in many ways, a great deal more satisfactory than anything on offer now. Again, I shall return to that later.
One of the worst features of British Rail being able to present a Bill in this way is that the Government and everyone else have no other source of advice. British Rail is the judge and jury in its own cause. When one writes as I have written to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport one is left with the clear impression that the only source of advice open to them comes from the very people whose action one is seeking to challenge. That is not the source of advice that anybody sensible would trust. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the readiness that they have shown to see hon. Members and to discuss such issues with them at frequent intervals.
One person whom I met today in connection with this issue had had an earlier meeting with British Rail cancelled because the British Rail people he was to meet had believed that there would be a railway strike. Not only can British Rail not tell passengers where and when trains will run, it cannot even get it right when they will not be running.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton and the Minister claim that the Bill does not pre-empt a decision on the route of the high-speed link. I have been to several meetings at which British Rail has claimed that various route proposals cannot be accepted because they do not go easily into the termini that British Rail has selected. I fear that even my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, with all his wordly wisdom, has been sucked into the slough of deception of which British Rail is such a consummate master.
If, however, it is the case that the choice of King's Cross does not pre-empt a decision on the high-speed link, I believe that we should take comfort from that. That would mean, contrary to the belief that has been engendered by British Rail's behaviour throughout the country and at King's Cross, that there is time to consider alternatives. I must say that I wish that I fully believed British Rail. However, having heard it so often dismiss the alternatives,


I fear that British Rail wants to get the terminus built now, partly to strengthen its resistance to any suggestion that there might be alternative routes to the high-speed link.
On the question of compensation, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton explained with the clarity and honesty for which he is so well known, that British Rail intends to fund this great development principally out of planning gain. Let us not make any mistake about the fact that most of the land from which it proposes to fund the development was acquired under earlier private railway legislation. That is a matter of profound principle not just for now, but for the future. If we become active in the Euro-railway link, there will be railways built hither and yonder around the United Kingdom.
If we seriously accept the proposition that British Rail be allowed to acquire more land than it needs to build a railway—so that at some unspecified time in the future it may sell it again for speculative gain—we are in danger of doing a serious injustice to those people who—not in this case, but in other cases—will be expropriated under compulsory purchase, and who will then see the gain that they might have been allowed to make on their land stripped from them by British Rail. It might then be a private company and it would be making a profit out of land to which it would have had no access had it not been for the private Bill giving it the compulsory purchase powers. That is a matter of great concern to every hon. Member representing Kent constituencies. It should be a matter of great concern to every hon. Member in the House.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman used the words "planning gain" concerning the speculative office development in which British Rail hopes to be involved at King's Cross. Normally, a planning gain is regarded as a gain for the local community. However, British Rail is after a speculative gain which for the local community would be a planning loss.

Mr. Rowe: That is an entirely valid comment. I have already said that the very things that British Rail is hoping to build may in some cases destroy, by their sheer quantity, the very market in which it hopes to make a profit. However, that is a matter for British Rail and not for me.
I have one question to ask concerning the King's Cross Railways Bill. I understand that one of the properties under discussion is a property called "The Lighthouse", which I believe it is no longer necessary for British Rail to use for railway purposes. I had always understood that the purpose of a private Bill was to give British Rail, or the railway company, the power to purchase those things without which it would not be possible to build a railway. If, therefore, British Rail does not need The Lighthouse, I hope that it will not seek to acquire it.
We are in the worst of all possible worlds. British Rail is not a private body so when it comes to offering compensation it is constrained by rules which have been devised by the Government. At the same time the Government are leaving it severely on its own, as if it were a private concern. It is important to remember that a great deal of public anxiety over Eurotunnel operations was assuaged because Eurotunnel could offer extremely generous compensation terms to the residents of three blighted villages. As a direct consequence, many of the

anxieties of those residents disappeared. British Rail is constrained to offer an ungenerous level of compensation. In Germany, 116 per cent. of the value of a property is offered. The people of King's Cross are entitled to press for that.
Will the new station be built to continental specifications? If the high-speed rail link were to come to King's Cross, would it be built to continental gauge? If so, will the other lines into King's Cross be adapted to this indispensable gauge? It is no use having through lines from John O'Groats to Brussels if they cannot carry the sort of coaches and continental gauge wagons that are needed.

Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend tell us how much extra it would cost to install the Berne gauge system? That may be of interest. Has he made any estimates?

Mr. Rowe: There are estimates. It is reasonably simple to install the Berne gauge when building a new line or facility. One assumes that a new passenger line would be built to that gauge. So far I have had no confirmation of that most important matter.
On the freight side, British Rail's pioneering, engineering wizardry will carry us into the 21st century, competing with all the established mainland continental European countries. It will achieve that with wagon wheels a foot smaller in diameter than those that run on continental railway lines. The fact that they will wear out lines more quickly than the bigger wheels may just possibly make them unacceptable to the French, Germans and Italians. We may discover that British Rail's freight plans result in the extraordinary performance of its small-wheeled wagons going only as far as the tunnel. The freight will then have to go on continental wagons because British Rail wagons will not be acceptable on the continent. That is not a prospect that I look forward to with any great pride.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton say that an environmental impact study is being carried out on the King's Cross plan, and the Minister confirmed that. Will my hon. Friend tell us by whom it is being carried out and under what instructions? The environmental impact study on the high-speed rail link through Kent is being carried out by Environmental Resources Ltd. which has been instructed by British Rail not to consider any modifications that are not acceptable to British Rail engineers. The idea that it is in any serious sense a fully objective environmental impact study falls at the first fence.
It is clear from the way in which the King's Cross proposal has been treated that remarkably little consideration is being shown to those who will lose either their homes or livelihoods.
The question of congestion has already been covered extremely well by many hon. Members in the debate. I believe that British Rail's statistics are not to be trusted. The Waterloo development, which will not be completed until 1996, will be over capacity by the year 2000, just four years later. My constituents are fed up to the back teeth with hearing British Rail swapping statistics. Every time it produces a statistic it comes back within a week, month or year to say that it was totally and absolutely wrong, and it was ridiculous to give one figure because it did not mean it but meant something else.
Already, 80 million passengers a year travel through King's Cross. How many more passengers a year is King's


Cross expected to take? The current proposition suggests that it will be a mere 15 million. When the die is cast, how can we be sure that the number will be only 15 million? Where will British Rail go next in order to cope with the expansion? I do not trust British Rail statistics.
In addition, I do not trust British Rail costings. How does it work out its sums? In this project the costs are estimated to be nearly £575 million. Admittedly, that is less than the sum that British Rail added to its estimate for a high-speed link through my constituency when it came under pressure one weekend. In that project, nobody believes that British Rail has correctly guessed the costs.
If British Rail continues with the high-speed rail link on the line that it has chosen, it will come to a sticky end, probably somewhere under the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). It will come back and say that it is terribly sorry but that it needs another £1 billion to finish the project because it is all much more difficult than it thought.
There is an alternative. The instruction to the Committee, to which I am pleased to have added my signature, states:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to satisfy themselves that British Rail gave adequate consideration to other possible locations at King's Cross and the proposal for a station at Stratford, East before adopting the plan covered by the Works contained in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
That is a terribly important instruction, whether one votes for or against this benighted Bill tonight. It is a fundamentally proper instruction to the Committee; there is an alternative. As we have already heard, a report has been completed by Colin Buchanan and Partners, which suggests that between £500 million and £1,100 million in savings could be made available if Stratford were chosen rather than King's Cross. It is extraordinary that we should have in front of us a project that may cause costs of up to £1,100 million more than an alternative that is rejected by almost all hon. Members who have spoken and everyone who lives in the locality, while the cheaper alternative is welcomed with open arms by the local authority in whose areas it falls and by the local community. If the House votes for a Bill that adds more than £1 billion to the cost in order to locate something where it is not wanted rather than where it is wanted, we need our heads examined.

Ms. Harriet Harman: It seems absolutely clear to me from the debate so far that the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) did no more than say what was on the face of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) spoke against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) explained why we should not be in favour of it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke against it, and we have just heard the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) do the same. All were wholly opposed to the Bill.
The only qualified support came from the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Even he was concerned, since it appears that flit, freight that he wants to go from his constituency to the continent might have to get off at Euston and get on a

travelator, and then get on at King's Cross before going to the coast, whereupon it will have to get off because the wheels are too small.
It is hard to tell whether the Minister spoke in favour of the Bill or against it. Pontius Pilate would not have been ashamed of the Minister's speech—an "it is nothing to do with me" speech. He is only the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill is only to do with the opportunities for freight to move from different parts of the country to Europe; of course that is nothing to do with him—he is only the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill is to do with passengers coming through from Europe to London and other parts of the country—the same applies. It is to do with traffic congestion in north London—that is nothing to do with him; he is only the Minister for Public Transport—

Mr. Cryer: Although the Minister may say that this has nothing to do with him, a suspiciously large number of Ministers and PPSs are here tonight. Perhaps he has arranged for a Whip to be put on the Bill so that the Government can get it through with the : Mr. Cryer: Although the Minister may say that this has nothing to do with him, a suspiciously large number of Ministers and PPSs are here tonight. Perhaps he has arranged for a Whip to be put on the Bill so that the Government can get it through with the payroll vote. In that case, he has not told the House the whole truth.

Ms. Harman: I agree.
We understood exactly what the Minister was saying when he explained that this had nothing to do with the Government because they were not putting money into it. The Government are interested only in whether public money is put in. The strategic implications for regional policy mean nothing to the Government; nor do the transport issues, the planning issues or the blight issues.
The Government say they have gone green. The Minister told us that at some future date we shall have a half-baked environmental impact study from British Rail, but that in the meantime we might as well give the Bill a Second Reading. If that is the policy of a green Government, they must be green from mould, not from environmental concerns.
Parliament is being asked to decide on the siting of a terminal at King's Cross. We have not been allowed to see British Rail's costings or any of the evaluations of alternative terminals—or the environmental impact assessments or the engineers' reports, or anything else. This is the parliamentary equivalent of "pin the tail on the donkey". In fact, that game is a bit more scientific than what we are asked to do tonight—

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend said that we have not been able to see British Rail's costings. We have the figures given in the statement in support of the Bill, which seem to show that the cost of the proposed works at the below-ground international station will be about £456 million. That is based on the proposals for a six-platform station, but we are now told informally by British Rail that it may run to eight, rather than six, platforms, so even the costings that we have must be questioned.

Ms. Harman: I agree, and the only information that BR has provided has been corrected or revised time and again, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent pointed out.
The British Railways Board believes that it is right for us to agree to site the terminal at King's Cross. I presume that, being members of the hoard, those concerned made an assessment between alternatives and that that involved challenging their officials on cost, environment, the wider


transport considerations, the number of homes that would be affected and what would happen in London, the rest of the south-east and elsewhere.
I also assume that before they made their decision, the members of the board were given some answers. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have been asking questions, but we have not received any answers. We asked those questions again tonight—of the hon. Member representing the promoters and of the Minister—yet we still do not have the answers. How can we agree even to do no more than rubber-stamp what British Railways Board members have decided when we do not have any of the information that they must have had before reaching their decision?
In any event, what is so secret about this information? It is not a question of national security. No criminal investigations are outstanding and must be protected. Nor is it a question of commercial confidentiality. Why cannot BR share with us the information on which its board members made their decision?
We are not receiving the facts because BR has become obsessively secret about it all. If its plans are so good and its thought processes correct, why can they not be shared with us? I suggest that it is all being kept secret because it is a botched job. Until BR is prepared to share with us its plans and let us subject them to independent scrutiny on behalf of our constituents who will be affected by those plans, we can look on what is proposed only as a back-of-an-envelope job.
When I have asked BR for this information at meetings I have been told that the whole issue must go before Parliament to be decided. I have replied, "What are you talking about? I am an MP. Don't tell me that it must go before Parliament and, because of that, I cannot see the information."
I trust that this debate will not draw to a close without the House being given an undertaking by the hon. Member for Acton, on behalf of the promoters, that hon. Members will be given this information. Indeed, I suggest that he arranges to place in the House of Commons Library all the information on which the British Railways Board made its decision.
The Minister did not explain what information he had. Indeed, he seemed to regard this lack of information as a matter of no concern to him. While he may not care to look at such documents if they are placed in the Library, many hon. Members who are concerned about the regional and economic implications of what is proposed will want to examine them, as will hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies and have spoken out against the Bill.
I hope that the Official Report of this debate will be circulated widely throughout my constituency and in the neighbouring marginal constituency of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Those whose lives, homes and businesses are already affected by what is proposed will not believe that following a debate such as we have had, the Bill received its Second Reading.
It is ludicrous for Transport Ministers to say, "We have no strategic involvement in what is proposed." My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) explained how the Secretary of State appeared before the London group of Labour Members and said,

after we had referred to him deferentially as the transport authority for London and the south-east, "I am not the transport authority for this area."
We asked him who had that responsibility, and he replied. "There is no such person." That might explain the mess in which we find ourselves. We told him that if his job description did not include being strategically responsible for transport in London and the south-east, he should start accepting that task in the absence of anybody else taking it on. Unfortunately, that seemed not to be part of his consideration or that of his colleagues.
It is ludicrous that the Government have accepted British Rail's proposal to separate discussion of the terminal from discussion about the route. How do we find ourselves in a position where we have a discussion about one terminal followed by a discussion about a second terminal? One end of the Channel tunnel is appearing at the coast, yet we are told that the discussion on the route must be an entirely separate matter.
I know that we are not allowed to use visual aids in the Chamber. Perhaps it will help hon. Members, however, if I explain the map that I have drawn on a piece of House of Commons blotting paper. Mark my words, it is more sophisticated than most of the plans that British Rail has produced so far. I hope that the House will take my document seriously. I have marked King's Cross, to the west of which is Waterloo. The Channel tunnel is, of course, at the coast. In the middle is Peckham. One terminal is planned at Waterloo, with a second terminal at King's Cross. British Rail says that Peckham is the only place for the sub-surface junction.
I asked British Rail whether there was not somewhere else to place the sub-surface junction that it plans for Peckham. The answer was no. The British Rail representatives added, "There is nowhere else where we can have the two lines from King's Cross and Waterloo converging." Why is it that I am told by British Rail that I have no right to have a say and that my constituents have no interest in the Bill? I am told that I have no locus standi. I submitted a parliamentary petition as I wished to represent the interests of my constituents in the course of an opposed Private Bill Committee. I am fearful of the consequences if the Bill receives a Second Reading and four hon. Members who know nothing about engineering are given the responsibility of reaching a decision on an incredibly important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the fact that the four hon. Members have no knowledge of engineering might be an advantage. I have heard of the tradition of amateurs in this country, but this is ridiculous.
I wanted the opportunity of appearing before the Committee and calling evidence on behalf of my constituents. I wanted the opportunity of saying, "This is the wrong place to site a terminal. Look at the effect that the siting will have on my constituents." That was my modest attempt to represent my constituents.
What does British Rail do? It does not say that my petition is in the wrong form. Instead, it says that I have no locus standi and no interest. That is a disgraceful way of shutting people out of the debate. My constituents are unable to sell their houses. In one instance, two of my constituents who want to separate are obliged to continue living in their house because they cannot sell it. Various personal difficulties are arising. However, British Rail tells me that I have no interest in the Bill.
It is entirely in British Rail's discretion to allow people to make representations to the Committee. Why is British Rail so afraid that the pillars of the temple will fall down if I have the opportunity to represent my constituents and bring evidence to the Committee to show how my constituents are likely to be affected? British Rail's reaction was narrow and mean-minded. In effect, it said, "Anybody who does nt agree with us should get out of the road. We do not want to hear you."
British Rail tried to tell me that it had no option but to rule out my petition. As I have said, it challenged my locus standi. Before I became a Member of this place I used to act as a parliamentary agent. Parliamentary agents advise those who seek to oppose or promote Bills and there is a discretion whether to challenge locus standi. It is shameful that British Rail has accepted the advice of parliamentary agents with the consequence that those who are profoundly affected are told, in effect, "You have no say. Shut up and keep out of it." As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, if the Bill is enacted and there is a terminal at Waterloo and another at King's Cross, he, the hon. Member for Dulwich and I will tell the House, "We do not want this route." British Rail will respond, "Sorry, it is too late. Given the location of the terminals, it is the only feasible route." We will not put up with that.
I give notice that if the Bill receives its Second Reading and goes to Committee, I shall petition on behalf of my constituents again, in another place. I hope that the hon. Member for Acton will give me an undertaking today that he will urge British Rail not to challenge my locus standi. There will be an Opposed Bill Committee in another place and if, because of British Rail's disgraceful behaviour, I have missed an opportunity to represent my constituents in this House, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that I shall have an opportunity to air my constituents' grievances in the Committee in another place.
British Rail has engaged in a deliberately misleading advertising campaign that has maximised opposition to the Bill. It has made people angry and furious as well as fearful. In an advertising campaign produced by Saatchi and Saatchi, British Rail used phrases such as "temporary closure" and "some disruption." It is describing the turning of Warwick gardens in Peckham into a giant construction slum of boarded-up houses, closed roads and businesses, and empty homes that will exist for at least 10 years.
If Warwick gardens is to be the location of the sub-surface junction, it will become the site of one of the most difficult and largest civil engineering projects in the whole of London. Warwick gardens will become a giant building site. The Government talk of inner-city regeneration, but they will blight that struggling inner-city area for 10 years. British Rail say that they will grass over the site and that everything will be as it was before, but people will no longer be living in the homes they have now, and the businesses that currently exist will no longer be there either. It will take decades for that area to pick itself up off the ground.
No one in Peckham was consulted before British Rail made its decision about the sub-surface junction. No one in Peckham wants that junction at Warwick gardens, yet British Rail is keeping me, as Peckham's Member of Parliament, out of the Committee and, by refusing to divulge any of the relevant papers, it is keeping all right hon. and hon. Members blindfolded. That is disgraceful, and British Rail should not be allowed to get away with it.
British Rail could have held a public inquiry, and I do not want to hear it said that such an inquiry would take too long. The Government are expert at guillotining everything, so it should not be beyond their wits to hold a public inquiry over a limited time span. Instead, they chose to push the Bill through the House. The only alternative is guerrilla warfare, and that is exactly what the Government will get.

Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that she is not being individually discriminated against by British Rail? A man living in a boat on the Regent's canal in my constituency had his locus standi challenged by British Rail—yet its proposals include draining the canal where his boat is moored, which will deprive him of his home.

Ms. Harman: Parliamentary agents are required to sign a certificate of respectability, as I had to do. I do not know how the lot who are advising British Rail managed to qualify for a certificate of respectability.
I turn to the question of how passengers and freight are to be transported from the Channel tunnel to different parts of London and to the rest of the country. No one wants a road. I do not want to hear it said that we are against railways. We do not want a road, and the people of south-east London do not want passengers and freight using existing roads because the Old Kent road is chock-a-block as it is.
Instead, we want the rail link to be contained in a tunnel below London. If a tunnel can be constructed for a distance of 22 miles under the sea, and if a further tunnel can be constructed under the Thames, there is no reason why the junction has to emerge in the middle of Peckham. It seems that they have merely flown over Peckham and then said, "It's a pity about Peckham." That is simply not good enough.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend mentioned contact with other regions. Those of us who represent northern constituencies are anxious that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, the Opposition instructions should be carried. But if the King's Cross solution is forced through—I say that advisedly, for that is what the Government will attempt to do—the problems will not be solved.
I have just received from British Rail a note of a meeting that it held with Members of both Houses, which says:
The London Midland Region is well positioned for Channel Tunnel traffic as it already had a route around London and Willesden to Clapham via Kensington. This route is to be electrified to enable easy transfer.
If British Rail believes that that is the way to give the north and north-west the contact with Europe that they need, it is disgraceful and shows that BR still has not got it right in the Bill.

Ms. Harman: I urge all my hon. Friends from different regions to vote against Second Reading. I understand that we must vote on Second Reading before we vote on the instructions; if it were the other way round and we could vote on the instructions first, as a sort of amendment, we might be able to vote for the instructions and then, if they were passed, for Second Reading. I hope that those who, like me, are afraid that the instructions may not be passed and without them the whole exercise is a farce—will vote against Second Reading. I also hope that those who


support the Bill in principle, such as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, will in any event vote in favour of the instructions.
Let me ask a question that all my constituents, and those in neighbouring constituencies, are asking: who are the villains of the piece? British Rail stands accused of incompetence—there can be no doubt of that—but I think that the Government are the real villains. They have said that British Rail must make a profit, and everything else comes second—the regional implications, the implications for the environment and the implications for homes and traffic. British Rail must make a profit and account for it to the Government; as long as that is done the Government are not interested in anything else.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Are not the real villains of the piece the narrow-minded interests in the London community who want to shut out what will be a very important development for us in the north? Many people in the north want to make the best possible use of Europe after 1992. Here is a golden opportunity for them to develop a direct rail link with the Channel tunnel, with all the opportunities that that in turn involves, but all that we have heard from the hon. Lady is a disgraceful speech about the narrow interests of the people of Peckham.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was both ignorant and offensive. He has not heard the speeches opposing Second Reading; he has simply drifted into the Chamber. He has clearly not read the Order Paper either. Let me remind him that one of the instructions, which I support, proposes
an Instruction to the Committee … that they shall take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the

proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland"—
and, no doubt, even Stockton.
I did not wish to repeat what my hon. Friends have said, but I said at the outset of my speech that I supported them. I have not yet got into the habit that many hon. Members have acquired of repeating each other's remarks over and over again; I have sought to represent my constituents. But I think that I have taken too much time in replying to the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Devlin), whose comment was obviously frivolous and not worth answering.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has only recently come into the Chamber. He made a disgraceful comment about my hon. Friend's speech. It is clear that he has not heard of the massive destruction of homes, jobs and livelihoods and of the destruction of an entire neighbourhood that the Bill will bring about. I do not call narrow-minded the opposition of those who live in the area and whose lives will be profoundly affected by the Bill.

Ms. Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have already said that the villains of the piece are British Rail for incompetence and the Government for caring only about profit, not about wider transport considerations and people. We know who the victims of the Bill will be. They will be people in Kent, south-east London, King's Cross, Wales, the north, Scotland and the south-west who are hoping that the Channel tunnel will spell economic regeneration for those areas. I hope that the House will vote against the Bill. If, by any chance, it is given a Second Reading, I implore hon. Members to vote for both the instructions that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends and of Conservative Members.

Mr. Alan Amos: I have listened very carefully for some hours to the arguments on both sides, because I understand the strength of feeling. However, I return to my original belief that anyone who genuinely believes in the regional development of this country and who wants the north to have a fair share in the economic prosperity of the nation must enthusiastically support the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the instruction?

Mr. Amos: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hang on and allow me to develop my argument. Then I shall give way to him.
As a north-eastern Member of Parliament, I see 1992 and the Channel tunnel as golden opportunities and as an exciting development for my constituents in Hexham and elsewhere in the north-east. For the first time ever in history, they will be nearer to the centre, the heart of continental Europe. However, there is a real danger that resources and attention will shift to the centre unless there is access to the regions and unless that access is made as easy as possible. A direct through rail link between the north-east and the Channel tunnel is essential. With adequate capacity, it could meet what I believe will be a significant growth in both passenger and freight traffic in the foreseeable future—far in excess of anything that is currently being predicted.
With its connections to the north-east, only King's Cross, in my opinion, will provide that vital link. I believe that that view is held almost unanimously in the north-east. The establishment of a second international terminal at King's Cross will eventually link cities such as Newcastle and Naples. I hope that eventually it will link cities and towns such as Hamburg and Hexham.
King's Cross will provide a convenient and modern interchange between international through services and a vast array of domestic rail and Underground services, linking the continent, central London and Britain's regions. I echo the words of the Northern Region Councils Association which says that King's Cross is fundamentally important to the northern region. It continues:
Unless this and other … decisions are taken, the regions face the prospect of the Thames replacing the Channel as a barrier to trade with Europe.
The Northern Region CBI also says that a terminal at King's Cross will have
an important bearing on the future prospects of the Region.
I am afraid that one is closing one's eyes if one does not honestly believe that people in the north-east regard the link at King's Cross as vital to that region.

Mr. Dobson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's obvious and sensible commitment to fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the north-east and the Channel tunnel, does he intend to support the instruction? All we are asking British Rail to do in the instruction is to prove what it claims it is trying to do.

Mr. Amos: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer him in my concluding remarks.

Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recently visited my region to tell us how awful it was? He said that it was unemployed and being run down continuously. He caused grave offence to many people in

the region, who regarded him as a London Member of Parliament who had visited the area merely to tell us bad things about the north-east. When my hon. Friend frames his reply to the hon. Gentleman, he should bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman is no friend of the north-east, and nor is the Labour party.

Mr. Amos: I am sure that once the hon. Gentleman has listened to my comments he will be better informed of my opinions and about the north-east.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Amos: May I continue? I must get on.
Apart from the significant short-term and other advantages in the choice of King's Cross, such as a more frequent Thameslink service connecting Gatwick airport, I am mostly concerned about the Bill's effect on the north-east. It will be an inexplicable tragedy with far-reaching consequences if he Bill is not given a Second Reading. The new international terminal will be linked to a new terminal building connecting main line King's Cross and St. Pancras. International trains will run between the north-east and Scotland to the heart of continental Europe on the continental rail network. There will be easy interchanges between other international trains and InterCity services on the east coast main line, which will be entirely electrified to Newcastle and beyond by 1991.
In addition, passengers from the north-east will have improved services from King's Cross on Network SouthEast to Bedford, Brighton and King's Lynn, linking the home counties and beyond, and also from St. Pancras to the east midlands. We are talking about not only better through services but better connecting services from King's Cross, with the interchange network that it will create. My constituents, who have as much interest in where the terminal is based as anyone else, will benefit from better international and domestic travel arrangements. Two new approach tracks—on the east coast main line north of King's Cross and a link between the east coast main line and St. Pancras—will combine to provide travellers with a wider range of services.
British Rail is under an obligation to make its scheme commercially justifiable, and we accept that. It must consider demand for its service at King's Cross compared with alternative sites. We are told—the figure may or may not be correct—that three quarters of passenger demand for international passenger services is forecast to arise in London and the south-east. That means that at least a quarter—I suspect that it will be more—of the demand will be from the regions. It is therefore essential that any terminal is located where routes from the regions and London and the south-east best converge and where it can be facilitated with the least congestion.
That involves a number of requirements. First, there must be quick, regular access to central London by the Underground, bus, taxi and car. Secondly, there must be access for through trains to the north and beyond. Thirdly, there must be frequent and reliable connections to local InterCity services to destinations not served by through routes—the onward journeys to which I referred.
The advantages of King's Cross are way ahead of any alternative, such as access to central London. It is served by five Underground lines, and there are many bus services. I am prepared to accept that no road in London


is not already over-congested, but it is adjacent to a wide and major road. It is already one of the best terminals for onward travel.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman rushes past the subject with a two-second jab at London's traffic jams, I must ask him whether he realises that London's traffic problems are horrendous. Those of us who represent constituencies to the north of King's Cross are concerned that, if only 15 per cent. of passengers travel to and from King's Cross station by car, the congestion up to the M1 will be quite intolerable.
His dismissive attitude to London's traffic does the hon. Gentleman no good at all. He should recognise that siting the terminal at King's Cross will create impossible congestion on the road system of north London. The people of north London do not want any more roads. They are opposed to more road building, and they believe that traffic should be sent round London and that railways rather than the ludicrous development the hon. Gentleman appears to support should be encouraged.

Mr. Amos: The hon. Gentleman has raised some interesting points, which can be easily shot down. It is absurd to say that the people of London do not want extra roads. I live in London from Monday to Thursday, and I want extra roads. The hon. Gentleman talked about congestion in London. This afternoon I went for a test drive with autoguide. That is a way forward, and I hope that Opposition Members will not oppose it in Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that the terminal would create more congestion and should be opposed on that basis alone. That is to put his head in the sand. The answer is to find ways to relieve the congestion, not to say that we do not want a terminal there because it will cause congestion.

Mr. Corbyn: Why King's Cross?

Mr. Amos: It will cause less congestion than the alternatives which I shall outline; I am giving reasons for the choice of King's Cross. King's Cross, as I have said, is linked with five Underground lines. Stratford, the only alternative, is linked to one. It is idle and incorrect to assume that, as soon as someone arrives at King's Cross, he will get into his car and travel north. Many passengers will take the Underground and go west to the hotel district or Heathrow, or take InterCity trains to Newcastle.

Mr. Tredinnick: Although my hon. Friend has sat throughout the whole debate, it is notable that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spent little time in the Chamber. Perhaps he should have spent some time in the Chamber if he is going to challenge my hon. Friend.

Mr. Amos: My hon. Friend is right.
My other point was that, in assessing the viability of King's Cross, we should assess its access for through trains and connecting trains. King's Cross is one of the best termini for onward travel, whether for London to the south-east and East Anglia, to the north-east and Scotland, for the Thameslink to the south coast or for connections to the east midlands via St. Pancras. King's Cross will further establish the principle of the practical possibility of more through London services.
This project is of national and international importance and we must consider it in that context. Stratford is not a serious or realistic alternative. All the criteria to which I have referred would be met badly if Stratford were to be chosen. Access to central London is via one Underground line—the Central line—and it is absurd even to suggest the possibility of passengers coming under the Channel, destined for central London, having to arrive in outer London at Stratford to come back into central London for hotels or onward arrangements. Stratford has one Tube line, which is already overloaded.
There are other ways into central London, such as by taxi, but it is over five miles from Stratford. Are we seriously suggesting that people should have to pay for an expensive taxi journey into central London? Most people, of course, will be going not to central London but to west London—either to Heathrow or the hotel district—so one is talking about expensive taxi rides, which would be the only way into central London. Access to other destinations is the other criterion by which Stratford should be judged. Stratford is no good for the regions. The rail station at Stratford, which I use occasionally, is geared to East Anglia and to nowhere else. I do not see why the northern region should be second best when considering this major terminal.
Let us accept that, if we want a second international terminal, it must be at King's Cross. King's Cross provides direct onward travel to Heathrow and Gatwick airports. It is significant that no hon. Member this evening has mentioned the onward travel arrangements from this terminal. It is fairly obvious that many passengers will want to go on to Heathrow and Gatwick. King's Cross is well placed for that because it is on the Piccadilly line to Heathrow and directly linked to Victoria station for Gatwick. The InterCity network is excellent. Network South-East is ideal—

Mr. Dunn: No, it is not.

Mr. Amos: It is ideal for other smaller towns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) well knows. King's Cross is ideally placed.
We are talking about a project that would link captial cities, and hon. Members should bear in mind that international dimension. I recently attended a meeting with the French side of Eurotunnel and I was amazed and impressed to discover how quickly and enthusiastically it was getting on with providing access to, and onward travel from, the Channel tunnel.
In King's Cross we have a site that already meets the necessary and reasonable requirements of an international terminal. Because of its poor location and accessibility, Stratford would not be used by passengers; it would be shunned by them and they would go to Waterloo or elsewhere instead. Stratford simply cannot meet the requirements of passengers travelling to central London or beyond.

Mr. Pike: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about the regions, why is he not prepared to support the instruction in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which would serve only to prove the case? Let us have it in the open; let him support that instruction.

Mr. Amos: Hon. Members may not have been listening, but I have been giving clear, and I believe logical, reasons


why I support the proposal to locate the terminus at King's Cross. In a few minutes I shall say why I want us to stop shilly-shallying and finding all sorts of reasons why we should not go ahead with the project. We should get on with it.

Mr. Dobson: My terminus right or wrong.

Mr. Amos: The hon. Member should be more reasonable. I may disagree with him, but at least I have given reasons why I think King's Cross is the terminus to choose.
If King's Cross is chosen, the terminus for travellers from the north-east will become a much less unhygienic and unsavoury place in which to arrive and from which to depart. At the moment, King's Cross is not a very nice station for my constituents to arrive at or leave from, but once the interchange network is established and built, as I hope it will be, there will be tremendous improvements at King's Cross.

Mr. Dobson: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, according to the lowest estimate, 60,000 extra people will be using the station each day? Will that improve the facilities?

Mr. Amos: The detailed plans and design provide for more capacity, and the station will be cleaner and more modern. It will not be the present station slightly enlarged; it will be a different station—a whole new complex. The hon. Gentleman must extend his horizons, rather than thinking only of all the negative factors. If we say that we do not want King's Cross to be the site, we shall be back to square one and the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be the first to complain that in comparison with the French terminus ours is inadequate and dirty. The new King's Cross will be cleaner and more modern and it will have new shops and restaurants. That is what we are trying to build, and the hon. Gentleman should support us.

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and myself. Our view is that, if the station is to be at King's Cross, it should occupy the 125 acres of land behind the present King's Cross station, on which a magnificent Eurostation could be built. What we object to is the idea of digging a dump under the existing station, which is what the Bill proposes.

Mr. Amos: That is another example of narrow thinking. The hon. Gentleman has his head in the sand. He talks about a "dump" underground. He must go to Paris and see the underground dump there. The French have linked their rail network. It is underground, in the centre of the capital city. It does not have to be a dump. The hon. Gentleman should extend his horizons.
Opposition Members have constantly referred to British Rail's land which it may want to sell. I do not blame it for that. The land belongs to British Rail. It must make a commercial decision. If selling the land helps it to produce the new interchange that will be convenient for my constituents, I will happily support it. Hon. Members cannot criticise British Rail for wanting to sell land that it does not need. It can build a good interchange underneath the city, just as there is in Paris—which works. I suggest that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should see it.
Let us ignore the NIMBY syndrome in certain vested interests and build Europe's largest transport interchange. The one in Paris proves that such a project is possible. Of course I accept the reservations about architectural changes. It is up to the Bill to take them into account. In return for our faith in British Rail's and London Underground's project, Conservative Members expect from British Rail a much better, more frequent, reliable and punctual service. We expect also a station that is clean and has adequate seating, shops and places to eat. Above all, we expect enough free trolleys for international passengers arriving with heavy luggage.
I note that one fifth of the expenditure on the project will be undertaken by London Underground. It is incumbent upon London Underground not again to let down the people of London and of the whole country by bad management, poor planning, unreliable service and a totally unsatisfactory network.
I agree that, if more passengers are to use King's Cross, there must be not only more ticket halls and subways but more trains to take passengers. We will not solve the problem by opposing the Bill. We must get on to London Underground and make sure that it honours its obligations to the people of London. It has not done so in the past 10 years. It has been a disgrace.
I hope that the Bill is given a Second Reading. I regret that no Opposition Member from the north-east has been present to support the measure. [Interruption.] I inform Opposition Members who have been sniggering for the past few minutes that the people of the north-east have as much interest in the second terminal as the people of London have. It is facetious of Opposition Members to snigger at the concept that the hon. Member for Hexham, which is 300 miles from London, does not have as much interest in the second terminal as they have. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who again is sniggering, has advanced no reason why Stratford is better than King's Cross. He has not told the House why it is more convenient to get into central London from Stratford or how the people from Hexham or the north-east in general can get from Stratford to their region and to Scotland. It is a disgrace that no Opposition Member has supported the King's Cross terminal.

Mr. Graham Allen: Unfortunately, hon. Members have seen one of the recurring characteristics of the Government—their ability to convert a golden opportunity and a one-off chance to a near disaster. That is particularly evident when history has delivered the Government a chance which will not occur again in hon. Members' lifetimes. North sea oil has been frittered away. There will be no other chance of that nature. The same applies to the Channel tunnel. The opportunity is unrepeatable, certainly in our lifetimes, and probably for many lifetimes to come. Unless the right decisions are taken, the Channel tunnel will become a dead end, especially for the people of my region. It appears that again tonight, at the Government's behest, British Rail is frittering away the chance to create further economic expansion and further bonuses in the east midlands. That is a great tragedy for the people of my constituency, my town, my shire and the east midlands as a whole.
As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, British Rail appears to be botching along. It is making its policy


up as it goes along, and is using piecemeal decision making rather than referring to any overall strategy or real planning. However, I for one do not blame British Rail for that because it is working within the constraints that have been set by Government. It is not its direct responsibility that this piecemeal operation is taking place. It is the restrictions placed on British Rail and the fact that it is not allowed to continue with strategic planning that has led it into this position. I refer to the financial constraints, the refusal to have a national strategy for transport and the refusal to plan properly so that British Rail can take long-term investment decisions rather than these short-term, botched decisions just to make its return on capital.
All those things would become evident if proper scrutiny were given to the Bill and that is the one thing that can be avoided by the use of the private Bill procedure. There cannot be a proper, full public inquiry so that all points of view can be aired, whether about the Stratford interchange, electrification or the type of locomotive power to be used. None of those broader issues, including, above all the strategic implications of the Channel tunnel to 1992, can be assessed through the private Bill procedure. The procedure is an anachronism; it is wrong; and the sooner that it is done away with, either by this Government or by the next Labour Government, the better. This matter deserves to go to a full public inquiry so that every facet of the issue can be examined in the full light of publicity. Unfortunately, that will not take place.
Like many colleagues in the House, I have received representations from several quarters. One fascinating thing about this issue is that representations have not just come from the trade unions, from the chambers of commerce, from only Labour or only Conservative Members—they have come from across the whole spectrum. Typical of those representations is one that I have received from the leader of Nottinghamshire county council, which states:
Local interests may not be able to put their own case fully, as they would at a local inquiry.
The fact that this procedure is being used makes this episode a shameful one that will return to haunt Governments of any political complexion over the next 30 years. The erroneous decision to go ahead with these proposals for King's Cross without a strategic network or an overall planning framework will live with us for many years to come.
It is the Government's imposition of unrealistic and short-term financial targets on British Rail that has produced the investment decisions, or rather the lack of long-term investment decisions, that are characterised in the proposal that we are considering tonight. The way in which the railway system in Britain has been neglected means that there is a strong argument for saying that a catching-up programme is now required.
British Rail receives £800 million, or thereabouts, in support from Government; in France, the figure is £1,800 million and in West Germany the figure is £4,500 million. Over the past decade the neglect and hostility to investing in anything in public ownership, such as British Rail, has overtly or covertly sought to make railways in this country fail. That misdemeanour must now be rectified if Britain is to become an equal partner in Europe. The east midlands,

above all, cannot afford to mortgage its future by allowing short-sightedness and dogmatic hostility to rule investment in public utilities.
Britain has planned to spend £500 million to include not only the route infrastructure, but the cost of a new London terminal. The French have budgeted about £1,200 million for their high-speed line to the tunnel, which does not include the ring route around Paris, and does not take into account their other investments in rolling stock, new lines to Lyon and the Atlantic line. Our investment in Britain must at least match that of the French, because our market potential is five times greater than theirs.
I, like many other hon. Members, in response to inquiries, have received a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the British Railways Board chairman, in which he has underlined the uncertainty of British Rail's investment framework. Because it cannot invest long term, it cannot make strategic decisions. It is caught in the chicken and egg situation. It wishes the initial demand to come from businesses, which say that they need, for example, a terminal or a goods yard, but businesses are looking to British Rail to provide facilities and, therefore, stimulate demand.
That uncertainty is typified in Sir Bob Reid's letter, where he says:
any scheme is only likely to work if there is adequate demand from freight forwarders to justify the terminal and the service, and if the terminal can be financed as a joint venture project with local authorities and developers".
Each side waits for the other to move. Without that essential overall planning framework, there is stalemate and a King's Cross terminal will be built without the investment that is so essential to the east midlands region.
Another strange example of the poor investment decisions is the King's Cross surplus railway land. I understand that, because of the high return required on capital, British Rail, instead of using that vast amount of land that is at the side of the tracks on which to build the interchange, is keeping aside that land to profit from speculative office building and will then go to the great expense of building underground. That is madness. Anyone coming into St. Pancras or King's Cross can see those 125 acres of unused land. Those acres are being put aside instead of being used for the ideal location of an overground interchange. I believe that British Rail is doing that rather than having a long-term overview and providing an extensive network of interchange lines and platforms on that land, because it needs to make the money on the land sale to meet the rates of return set by the Government.
At present every British Rail proposal must be judged by narrow commercial criteria set by the Government—including a 7 per cent. financial rate of return. It was on those grounds that British Rail refused to consider electrification of the midland main line before the end of the century. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 makes the position far worse, in that it reinforces the criteria and states that any facilities or services provided by British Rail must adhere to the commercial remit. The Government do not consider relevant social need, public interest, environmental consideration or relief of road and air congestion. Yet in France—our nearest continental neighbour—the Government's criteria for investment decisions include all those aforementioned factors. That would appear to be not only sensible, but essential.
The commercial interests in the east midlands also reject the Government's approach. The regional chamber of commerce has called for substantial public investment in infrastructure to provide access for our region to the tunnel. I am pleased to say that several regional Conservative Members also strongly support that contention.
Local authorities of all political colours are actively trying to attract national and international investment into the region on the basis of its excellent communications. That will be a hollow joke as traffic goes up the west and east coast lines. The starting point for improved rail communications must be a complete rejection of the narrow accounting practices in favour of a national economic approach to regenerate our area and other areas.
A once-in-a-century project, such as the channel tunnel, requires planning. It is planning that is anathema to the Government. That ideological refusal to consider planning, even in this context, is a major reason why the east midlands may end up being on the receiving end of an economic disaster. We need a package which does not just pick up individual items piecemeal, but which includes a view about industrial regeneration in all our manufacturing, services and other economic sectors. We have to tie in the infrastructure with that sort of economic overview. That means the direction and location of jobs, wherever the lines that will benefit from the Channel tunnel and 1992 will lead. To ignore that is to ignore the basic responsibilities of Government. The package must be for the United Kingdom as a whole—not merely for the south-east, but for all regions. Above all, the package must include the east midlands.
The east midlands will be bypassed by the proposed developments. To ensure that we are not bypassed and that our region does not become piggy in the middle and an economic backwater, we need electrification of the midland main line. A business man in Rome, or perhaps even Moscow or Brussels, will examine the rail map before he makes his long-term freighting, commercial or investment decisions. If the east or west coast lines are electrified and the midland main line is not, it may be an important consideration in deciding where to locate and ship to, and where passenger traffic goes. Even if it is merely a matter of status that the east midlands is not electrified and other regions are, it could have an immense knock-on effect on the economic viability of our area.
I understand that the east midlands line is not to be electrified. The Bill will have a detrimental effect unless we can campaign across party lines to ensure that the line is electrified. I have a letter from Mr. Kirkby, the vice-chairman of the British Railways Board, who states clearly:
it will not be possible to run day trains beyond the electrified network, as we will have to use permanently coupled electric trains, specially designed to meet the exacting specifications of the Channel Tunnel and the high speed links on either side.
That is Mr. Kirkby's view and, other than his chairman, there is no one higher on the British Railways Board. If that is to be the case, a large amount of through traffic will not have the option of entering Nottingham and the other stations along the line in the east midlands, which would be a tragedy.

Mr. Devlin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman feels, as I do, that the cause of regional development is good and worthy of support. Is not that the reason why it is important that the main terminal should be built at King's

Cross, which is on the main east coast line? The only alternative that has been put forward is Stratford which, as he knows, is not connected to the main east coast line. Would he also accept that King's Cross is next to St. Pancras which serves Nottingham? Would he further accept that the east coast main line, which I travel up and down on most weeks, has a train station at Grantham, which is not far away from the area that he represents?

Mr. Allen: The King's Cross option is the one that I and many people in the east midlands favour. However, it is only fair and apposite to consider all options. Unfortunately, if the instruction is not carried tonight 'we shall be merely rubber stamping a decision that should have been taken under full public analysis. I want to present a case to a public inquiry or to a committee showing why King's Cross is right and other options are not. I would like county councils, city councils, trade unions, chambers of commerce, and so on, to have that option which will be denied us tonight.
The difficulty about merely the east coast line being electrified is that if one has the option of continuing up the east coast line rather than getting off at Grantham and catching a Sprinter across, investment will probably be made along that line rather than in other areas. That is a matter of great concern to Members involved in the east midlands from both sides of the House.
The other reason that I would stress that we need a package for the east midlands rather than merely a super station at King's Cross is so that we can also benefit from the international freight traffic that will arise from the Channel tunnel and, particularly, from 1992. As they currently stand, the proposals for an international freight depot are dubious. British Rail is waiting for the demand from business and business is waiting for some indication from British Rail that it is serious about an international freight depot in the west midlands, at Toton, near Nottingham.
Unfortunately, such a chicken and egg situation is not viable. If one is planning long term, there must be clarity about how all the factors will fit together. For example, in France, there are already plans for 240 freight yards, all with direct access to the tunnel. Perhaps the Minister will say how many freight yards are planned for the United Kingdom—probably no more than a handful with direct access to the tunnel.

Mr. Cryer: Is the drift of my hon. Friend's remarks that those hon. Members representing provincial areas should vote against the Bill unless British Rail accept the instruction which makes it absolutely clear that the Committee should investigate the necessity of the
capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland"?
Is he saying that unless this instruction is carried—so far, British Rail has refused to accept it—the scheme may become so congested that it will be of no benefit to constituents in the east midlands, Bradford, Leeds and the north-east?

Mr. Allen: Voting for the King's Cross proposal as a trigger for economic development may well prove to be the trigger of the gun that shoots industry and commerce through the head in the east midlands. None the less, an international interchange is an essential prerequisite for further development. We need one, wherever it is to be


located. Only then shall we ensure that the traffic generated by our trading links through the tunnel with the European community is directed where we think it appropriate. The problem is that there is no serious strategy on where international passenger and freight traffic should go. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about that.
Rail freight becomes competitive with road freight at about 250 miles distance between collection and delivery. That distance will become unexceptional after 1992 and free movement within the EEC. The present plans seem deliberately designed to remove that competitive edge by inserting unnecessary delays and excursions. The east midlands, particularly, will be trapped between the two bows of the electrified east and west coast lines.
Economic development in this country requires long-term investment. It will not happen of its own accord. The Government are happy to let this Bill go through without having thought about it or taken evidence from the parties concerned; they seem content not to invest in an east midlands rail link or to provide long term planning for the freight terminal at Toton which everyone wants.
The Government can bribe Kent with £500 million to placate the electorate's environmental worries, but when the lifeblood of the east midlands is at stake, and a mere £100 million would electrify the line from St. Pancras up through the east midlands, the Government are not prepared to invest the money. It would be recouped many times over. The Government are being hypocritical and deceitful, and the Bill is inadequate.
The east midlands is united on this as I have never seen it united before. Across parties and industrial divides, from Nottingham to Loughborough, Mansfield, Leicester, Derby, Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough —all are united in supporting an electrified east midlands line and in wanting serious long-term planning and investment decisions from the Government for the international freight terminus.
I hope that this consensus will make the Government see sense and allow British Rail to plan for its long-term future. That will enable us to recoup some of the losses that this Bill will create. Without such a change of heart, the east midlands will not benefit, and the Channel tunnel and the link through to London will become one more in the series of great lost opportunities during the Government's time in office.

Mr. Neil Thorne: After listening to the debate for over four hours, I was becoming concerned at the way in which few Opposition Members appeared to be in favour of the railways. Indeed, only the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) advanced arguments in favour of the railways. That is regrettable, because the lifeblood of the future of the nation depends on the railways, which should be receiving much more support, particularly from north country members.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The thrust of our remarks is that my hon. Friends and I support the railways, that we recognise the vital necessity of a good rail system for the future of the country and that we recognise the necessity of having a railway network which benefits

more than London and the south-east. We say to British Rail when we ask for electrification from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, "Do not give us pie in the sky stories about the viability of the link between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. What about the viability of the whole line?" I hope that those who are listening to the debate will prevail on BR to publish the figures on which it decided on the viability of the line from London to Edinburgh.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful for that reassurance and I hope that when the terminal is built in London—which I hope will be at King's Cross—it will receive proper praise from hon. Members who represent north country constituencies.
British Rail has been unfairly criticised for using the private Bill procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said that the House was not being asked to approve the redevelopment scheme but only the railway works listed in the Bill; that planning permission was being sought by the developer from the local authority for the redevelopment itself in the normal way.
That procedure has existed for a long time. In fact, a number of substantial buildings were erected in this area last century to make provision for the railways that were then in course of construction. Indeed, the third largest party in the House is occupying one of those buildings as its headquarters in Cowley street. It was built especially for the parliamentary work of one of the railway companies, and that was typical of all railway companies last century. So we are talking of a procedure that is well established and one which BR could not avoid. In other words, BR has done exactly what was required of it, and it is unfair for hon. Members to be critical.
I was interested to hear what the three hon. Members who represent Newham constituencies said about the desirability of locating the terminus in their area, and, as constituency Members, it was their job to do that. Having examined the matter closely, I find the principle of locating the terminus at Stratford to be flawed. It would have been of some advantage to my constituency in the neighbouring borough of Redbridge if it were to be located there, but it would still be the wrong location because it would not help passengers; nor would it help people in transmitting between the north country and the centre of London.
In the past there have been substantial goods facilities at Stratford and at one time they included a large cattle facility. As a result, there is a lot of space there which I am sure Newham borough council would have liked to use for this purpose. But it would be the wrong location.
Safety and traffic growth are two of the important issues we have to consider, and the King's Cross area requires immediate attention on both counts. We had that awful tragedy in the Underground at King's Cross and hon. Members have spoken about the number of lines that converge at that point. The House must not simply pay lip service to safety, as we tend to do when such tragedies occur. We must see that action is taken to put matters right. That tragedy is one reason why this project has had to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, regardless of what happens to the remainder of the terminal.
Other opportunities must be explored. I find it greatly encouraging that the growth in use of the railways has been so considerable in recent years that many facilities are now saturated. That means that we must deal quickly with the matters that are before us.
Many of us have had the opportunity to see what has been done in other major terminals, such as Paris and Washington. We have seen what has been achieved at major terminals throughout the world. There are good opportunities for development at main line railway stations. We can see what has been done at Victoria and what is being done at Liverpool Street. Those who travel to London from the north-east could benefit by having a much better facility at King's Cross.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport seriously to consider compensation. Projects of the sort that we are discussing involve considerable investment—£500 million has been mentioned—and we must ensure that those whose lives are turned upside down by the implementation of proposals that are made for the benefit of society generally are more than adequately compensated for any annoyance and inconvenience that they suffer. Many other countries recognise that people who have been living in a certain property for the whole of their lives—perhaps 60 or 70 years—do not take kindly to being uprooted and thrown out.
We tend to hedge our compensation with many rules and regulations that provide a little more here and there for curtains and carpets, telephone connection, surveyors' fees and legal costs, for example, when we should adopt a much more robust and helpful approach to ensure that the sting is taken out of enforced moves and other annoyance and inconvenience. I should like to see the Department of Transport releasing bodies such as British Rail from the constraints to which they are subject. They are not allowed to proceed beyond the stringent rules laid down, because the Treasury is terrified that that might raise the cost of future projects. I can assure the Treasury that the cost of those projects would be reduced if the present constraints were lifted because completion would be much quicker. There would be much less hassle if opposition and resentment were not stirred up in every direction. Compensation should be considered much more sympathetically, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take that into account.

Mr. Gary Waller: Some hon. Members have spoken at almost interminable length about many issues that have relatively little to do with King's Cross. I shall attempt to speak succinctly about King's Cross and especially of what the proposed development would mean for the north of England.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), have spoken about what they described as the largest interchange in Europe. What we have at present is not an interchange. We have King's Cross, St. Pancras and Thameslink, and the links between them are extremely poor and inconvenient for passengers. The proposal that we are considering is based on an imaginative concept. It will cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, but it is one that we should support.
The new King's Cross can become the gateway to the north. I believe that it will be built and that those who now oppose the development will be seen to have had their heads in the sand.
An interchange must provide not only for people travelling from the furthest corners of the country but for Londoners and those who commute to London. The

capital's transport infrastructure suffers greatly from the large number of termini that are a consequence of the development of railway companies in the last century. There is now an opportunity to combine two of those termini into something that can be a great future asset.
It has been said that the procedure adopted for the Bill is an inadequate substitute for a proper planning inquiry, but that procedure is appropriate for a project having a national dimension—which the future of King's Cross clearly has. There is nothing unusual or irregular about adopting the private Bill procedure, which permits the construction of railway works in just the same way as the many railway Bills brought to Parliament in the past.
As has already been pointed out, an application for outline planning consent to construct the above-ground complex has been submitted to Camden council. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning clause 19, which will provide an adequate safeguard.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned traffic problems. The Bill provides an opportunity to ease many of them. Other hon. Members spoke of the existing level of congestion affecting rail passengers, especially commuters. However, the better facilities and easier access to trains that the Bill permits are bound to be welcomed by them.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller: I have very little time left, and I know that one of my hon. Friends wishes to intervene.
The north favours King's Cross as a second terminal. I say that confidently, knowing that all sides of industry —chambers of commerce and organisations promoting development in Yorkshire—are anxious that King's Cross is chosen. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the possibility of a second terminal at Stratford. However, if one studies the map, Stratford cannot possibly be justified as the location of an interchange. But an enhanced King's Cross will improve capacity for InterCity trains by rearranging tracks, extending platforms, and improving access from many parts of the country. Right hon. and hon. Members representing the interests of other regions will also identify the opportunities that King's Cross offers.
As to timing, the proposed works—including the new low-level station—are needed as soon as possible. That is why we should consider the Bill now and not wait for a future Channel tunnel rail link. If passengers travelling to and from the north, as well as Thameslink passengers—whose existing separate station is already congested—are properly to benefit, one cannot wait for developments that may take some time to realise.
Architectural considerations relating to the aboveground works will be examined when Camden council scrutinises the relevant planning application. The architecture of the proposed concourse, which will bring together the two stations and link them with the new sub-surface platforms, is imaginative. It makes use of a great deal of glass, and allows the architecture of the existing grade 1 buildings to be seen by all. By sweeping away many substandard buildings, much will be done to improve the local environment.
I see this as an exciting project. I hope that the House also welcomes it and will give the Bill a warm reception.

Mr. Chris Smith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 41.

Division No. 189]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Forth, Eric


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Amos, Alan
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Freeman, Roger


Atkins, Robert
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Baldry, Tony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gill, Christopher


Barron, Kevin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Batiste, Spencer
Gow, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bright, Graham
Haynes, Frank


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayward, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heddle, John


Buckley, George J.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hinchliffe, David


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Home Robertson, John


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp;B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Clelland, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
Knapman, Roger


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Latham, Michael


Cousins, Jim
Lawrence, Ivan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Leadbitter, Ted


Curry, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp;Spald'g)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John





Marek, Dr John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Steinberg, Gerry


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Needham, Richard
Thumham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


O'Brien, William
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wheeler, John


Quin, Ms Joyce
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Mike


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Neil Thorne and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Gary Waller.


Sims, Roger



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Livingstone, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Loyden, Eddie


Boateng, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Dobson, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Doran, Frank
Rowe, Andrew


Dunn, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Fearn, Ronald
Short, Clare


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wallace, James


Holland, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Chris Smith and


Lamond, James
Mr. Tony Banks.


Leighton, Ron

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they shall take evidence and report to the House on the capacity of the proposed works to provide for fast, frequent and reliable passenger and freight connections between the Channel Tunnel and the Midlands, North and Scotland and on the environmental impact of the proposals.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 186.

Division No. 190]
[11.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lamond, James


Allen, Graham
Leadbitter, Ted


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Livingstone, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boateng, Paul
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Eddie


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buckley, George J.
McNamara, Kevin


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Marek, Dr John


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
O'Brien, William


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Dobson, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Dunn, Bob
Rowe, Andrew


Fearn, Ronald
Ruddock, Joan


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fraser, John
Snape, Peter


Fyte, Maria
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steinberg, Gerry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hinchliffe, David
Wallace, James


Holland, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Chris Smith.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Amos, Alan
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp;Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Budgen, Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Burns, Simon
Eggar, Tim


Burt, Alistair
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill. John
Favell, Tony


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fishburn, John Dudley





Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Mellor, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Moore, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gardiner, George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gill, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ground, Patrick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hague, William
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Renton, Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heddle, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp;B'wd)
Sims, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stern, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jack, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Sumberg, David


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Lang, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Latham, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Trippier, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lilley, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wheeler, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Major, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Mike


Mans, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Marlow, Tony



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mates, Michael
Mr. Neil Thorpe and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Gary Waller.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Smoking in Public Places

Postponed proceeding on Question, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area, resumed.

12 midnight

Mr. Freeman: In the earlier part of the debate on the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister I explained that the draft resolution of the Council of Ministers is non-binding on the member states and does not have the force of law. We would be permitted to continue our voluntary policy of encouraging those responsible for restaurants, pubs and transport, both public and private, to segregate smokers from nonsmokers, but it would remain essentially a voluntary policy, except when safety issues are involved, as they are on the Underground where smoking is banned.
The Government fully support the Europe Against Cancer campaign, but we believe that the Community should not be involved in setting standards for public health. The Commission, of course, does not agree with that view. However, it proposes to proceed on the basis of the treaty as a whole under this draft non-binding resolution, without any reference to a specific article. Therefore, any decision by the Council of Ministers to carry the resolution would require unanimity.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If the Government and, presumably, the Council of Ministers generally regard this sort of proposal as an impertinent irrelevance, why do they allow the Commission to waste its time on this offensive stuff? Why did they not say, "Mind your own business" at an earlier stage?

Mr. Freeman: I do not regard this issue as at all offensive. It is an extremely important issue on which I as a Health Minister, my senior colleagues in the Department of Health and the British Government—

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Freeman: If I might finish my sentence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Freeman.

Mr. Freeman: rose—

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Freeman: If I might finish my sentence, I will be glad to give way.
As a Health Minister, I take the issue extremely seriously and support the notion that we should encourage the segregation of those who wish to smoke from those who do not wish to smoke or inhale cigarette smoke from those who choose to smoke.

Mr. Budgen: Let us understand the Government's position. Do the Government welcome this interference from the EEC? If the matter may be dealt with by our domestic legislature, why is the EEC interfering in it? In the first instance, we are not interested in whether the Government think that it is a good thing. Is this matter properly left to the EEC or should our domestic legislature be left alone to decide it?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter.
We accept that some non-public health matters are involved in the draft recommendation and, hence, justify Community consideration—for example, environmental issues. The environment is being polluted by those who smoke in public places. Therefore, as there is a partial competence of the Commission to consider and make proposals under the treaty, as I said earlier, we should have a mixed resolution. That part which is correctly related to the treaty can be decided by the Council of Ministers. The rest of the recommendation requires that it should be collectively decided by Ministers outside the framework of the Community treaty.

Mr. Marlow: We all understand that these are important environmental issues which have to be decided at the European Community level. These are environmental issues which cross frontiers between one Community country and another one. Could my hon. Friend explain to the House how it is that, if an individual happened to be smoking at Dover, that would inconvenience or pollute the environment of Calais?

Mr. Freeman: Despite my hon. Friend's intervention, I am sure that he would agree that, on smoking in public places, there is an undeniable environmental aspect to the proposals. Therefore, it cannot be denied that, under the treaty, there is competence on the part of the Commission to bring forward proposals. They are non-binding, as I said before. They are recommendations that would permit the British Government to maintain their policy of the voluntary reduction of smoking in public places.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Hon. Members regularly get this kind of thing from Europe, late at night when everybody is ready for going home. I am getting a bit sick of it. Why do the Minister and the Government not tell them in Europe to go to blazes—telling us what to do? We have Committee Rooms upstairs where hon. Members serve on Bills. Sometimes those hon. Members want to go out into the Corridor to have a cup of coffee and a cigarette or to light their pipes. Although through their Department of Health the Government try to encourage people not to smoke because, we are told, it is a danger, when people are trying not to smoke and when they are sucking the mint with the hole, why are they told in Committee that they are eating and that they must not do it? Why can the Minister not do something about that?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about us staying up late to debate this matter, but I am trying to speed the process.
Despite our past success in reducing tobacco consumption, we are not complacent. Smoking continues to cause 100,000 deaths each year, or 300 people—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister a specific question and he has ducked


it entirely. He may agree with what goes on over there, but I can tell him that we are not going to stand for much more of it.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that smoking regulations in the Palace of Westminster are not a matter for the Department of Health; they are a matter for the appropriate authorities in the House.
In conclusion, smoking continues to cause 100,000 deaths each year, or 300 people per day, and to cost the National Health Service over £500 million each year. We are continuing to monitor the situation and to seek new ways to encourage people to give up smoking. Our aim is to minimise the health risks that flow from smoking.
We have effective controls over cigarette advertising and sponsorship of sporting activities. We have secured a reduction in the average tar yield of cigarettes from 21 mg in 1972 to 13·6 mg today. We help to support ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—which is a voluntary group that campaigns against the use of tobacco. One third of the population smokes now compared with 40 per cent. in 1978. Tobacco consumption has declined faster in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community country, except the Netherlands, but we are not complacent and we need to make further progress. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the EEC document on passive smoking, but I am disappointed that the Minister has reminded the House that the document allows this country to continue with voluntary methods for segregating smokers from non-smokers. Those who have been concerned about this issue, and some hon. Members who spoke on the motion prior to our previous debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill and the Channel tunnel, are concerned about the legislation. Sadly, their fears are justified because, as the Minister explained, this country is allowed to continue its voluntary approach. My concern is that voluntary measures and public encouragement are not enough to protect people from lung cancer.
Passive smoking causes some risk of cancer. It also affects the elderly, people with cardiac diseases, asthma or allergies and can provoke respiratory diseases. It can endanger the development of the foetus. Smoking is also the cause of many fires.
We are talking not about making places smoke-free or about banning smoking, but about segregating smokers from non-smokers so that non-smokers have the right to breathe clean air.
In Britain we trail behind other EEC countries in only having a law which covers smoke-free areas on public transport. In all other public places there is no law to ensure smoke-free areas. Any restriction is merely voluntary. The result is that we still have restaurants and pubs in which there are no smoke-free zones for non-smokers who may be trying to eat or drink. We have smoking in schools and in hospitals that do not have smoke-free zones.
Any conflict of interest between the smoker and the non-smoker should be resolved in favour of the non-smoker. If backed by legislation, the EEC document would help to reinforce the important public health message that smoking is damaging. Legislation should be introduced to protect non-smokers from smoking in the workplace, restaurants and pubs.
I fully support the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) which gained the support of the House by 99 votes to 90, but on which the Government have failed to act. There should also be legislation to protect non-smokers from smoking on commercial transport, such as coaches and airlines. Such legislation should also cover hospitals and schools and any place where services are provided to the public, either free or for a charge.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Lady agree that this matter should be decided by the House and not by the EEC?

Ms. Harman: I hope that the House will decide that it supports the idea put forward in the document and that it will proceed to legislation. In fact, the document has been watered down; all it says is that it would be a good idea if people had smoke-free zones. I feel, therefore, that it is not worth the hon. Gentleman getting hot under the collar about—would that it were.
On 25 January the Prime Minister spoke at the launch of Europe Against Cancer Year. This is an opportunity for the Government to match her rhetoric with action.
The independent scientific committee on smoking and health reported in March 1988 that passive smoking could lead to
several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the UK.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Lady agree that the most powerful point was made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who in his usual absolutely right and passionate way said that we should not be interfering with the rights of the House? Even though the hon. Lady may have a bias against us poor wretched smokers, are we not really discussing whether those awful people in Brussels have the right to dictate to British people? Forgetting the hon. Lady's prejudice against smokers, does she want the people in Brussels to interfere?

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman's fervour is directed at the wrong EEC document. This is no more than a document urging a situation with which everyone would agree. My point is that the Government should go on from that to legislate to protect non-smokers from smoking in the workplace, restaurants, commercial transport, hospitals and schools, and situations where they cannot escape from smokers and the ensuing health risks.
I agree with the independent committee which went on to say:
non-smoking should be regarded as the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, special provision being made for smokers, rather than vice-versa.
The Minister spoke about the Government's concern about smoking, but there was a great deal of anger and concern that in Europe Against Cancer Year—no doubt some hon. Members will object even to that—the Chancellor's Budget failed to raise the tax on cigarettes even in line with inflation.
The Minister mentioned the sponsorship of sport and leisure by the tobacco industry. Anybody who watches any sport on television will know that major indirect advertising from the tobacco industry is poured into people's homes daily. I believe that the Government should ban all advertising by the tobacco industry and end all its sport and leisure sponsorship, which is merely backdoor advertising.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Lady agree that many people smoke because they are under stress? Has she ever calculated what the cost to the Health Service would be of other diseases which would affect people who were forced to stop smoking and who would, therefore suffer greater stress? Is she also not aware that many Tory Back Benchers have been caused great stress—especially me as a smoker—by the British Medical Association?

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman should visit his local hospital and see the many people in hospital because of conditions caused by smoking. I went around my local hospital and the doctors told me that 20 per cent. of the in-patients with heart disease, respiratory problems, circulation problems—some of them double amputees—low birth-weight babies and miscarriages were suffering as a result of smoking. [Interruption.] That is scientific evidence. Therefore, one of the important things we can do for public health is to encourage the existing trend to cut down smoking.
I welcome the document. It does not go far enough. I should like the Government to act on their stated intentions and to ensure that legislation is passed. We have had voluntary encouragement of smoke-free zones for a long time, yet in most restaurants, public houses, transport, hospitals and schools it has not worked. We should come into line with other EEC countries and legislate to ensure smoke-free zones.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As far as I know, nobody intends to divide the House on this and as far as I am concerned everybody can get the hell out of here.
I am not a non-smoker, but an anti-smoker. Smoking killed my father and I suffered second-hand cigarette smoke for the first 18 years of my life. Despite that, I am wholly amazed that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said that she is content not only with the measure, but to allow the European Community to compel this country to introduce measures on smoking and health. We may have strong views and we may wish to introduce our own measures, but the hon. Lady said that she was prepared to accept rulings on this and to allow Brussels and European institutions to compel this House and this country to introduce measures on smoking and health.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I would not have believed it if I had not heard it myself.

Mr. Marlow: I caution my hon. Friend that such is the state of Europe and the balance of political power within the Commission and the nation states of Europe that Europe is spawning measure after measure of Left-wing, Socialist, interventionist, interfering legislation, and that is why the hon. Lady supports it. That is where she gets her inspiration from. Europe today is about Socialism.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is going on a Left-wing trail and he is completely wrong. That lot in the Common Market are dictators—Right-wing dictators—and that is what is wrong. It is high time we told them to come off it and to buzz off. We will determine our own destiny in this place and not be dictated to by that lot over there.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Marlow: In a second. One at a time.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has yet to become acquainted with something known as the social charter. It is being pushed by President Mitterrand of France, the other Socialist countries in the Community and the bureaucrats and Socialists in his Commission, and when it is pushed on his party, he will embrace it wholeheartedly because it is Socialism tooth and claw. He will love it and lap it up.

Mr. Budgen: I do hope that my hon. Friend will stop talking about nation states in that old-fashioned way. He and I are proud to be part of a Conservative party which has voted for two massive handouts for the EEC and for the Single European Act, and which has been a most progressive instrument towards a federal Europe. It is no good making these silly remarks which give the impression that there is some reality to the Gaullist and nationalist rhetoric that comes from this party. My hon. Friend must realise that we are a federalist party. This silly talk about nation states simply shows how disloyal he is. That is what the Conservative Government are progressing towards, albeit backing into it.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend makes his point, as usual, eloquently. I think that he will remember that he and I voted against this nonsense when it came through the House. He will also recognise that the balance of opinion within our great party is in favour not of a federal Europe at all but of a Europe of nation states. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend should wait and see. I am more confident than he is that our national party stands for the nation, not for federal Europe.
The issue before us is a recommendation on smoking in public places. In the translation, kindly provided to the House by the European Commission, the word "recommendation" is spelt "recommandation", with an "a" where there should be an "e". I do not know whether that is a Freudian slip or whether it was meant. As the Minister said, at the moment, there is a great argument about the treaty base of this instrument, about whether it should be before us or not and whether it is a matter for Community competence. I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that when the argument is resolved it will be a "recommandation" and will be forced upon the House.
As day succeeds day, and month succeeds month in the Community, there is an inevitability that where there was at first a little grope or grasp for a small element of competence, it then becomes a definite area of Community competence. Bit by bit, the powers of the House and of British people to control their own destiny in areas where there is no necessity for Eureopean competence are being eroded. Why is that and how has it come about?
I have before me a scrap of paper called the Single European Act, to which are appended 12 signatures, including that of our own very pleasant, very popular, not very senior and not, to my constituents, a very committing Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). It is also signed, very appropriately, by a gentleman by the name of Goebbels. I jest not—his signature is here.
The measure that we are debating this evening has emanated from the Single European Act, the preamble to which says:
Moved by the will…to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union


We are going to have a European union on smoking and health. We might not like it, we might not have thought that we were going to get it or that we were voting for it when we had the referendum about joining a Common Market. We did not have a referendum about a single European state or a European union, but that is what we have got and that is what we have given the busybodies and that is the situation with which we must deal.
Mark it: the Single European Act that spawned this mischievous instrument will be used by those self same European institutions to envelop us in a web of unrequired, unrequited and unrequested European legislation, for our own good and to make us good Europeans, much of it with no other visible benefit. This measure will have a powerful, invisible effect of transferring power from this House to the European institutions.
This has gone on long enough and it is time that we put an end to it. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has grasped this issue and is aware of the problems that we face. She is aware, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is not, that many of the new measures coming from Europe are corporatist, Socialist and interventionist. She is aware, and the House should become aware, that the time will soon come to say to Europe in unmistakable terms, "Federal Europe, no. A Europe of nation states, yes." The time has not come with this instrument which is small, but the principle is important. This is the time when we should start to put across that message.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I shall stick to the motion, which is about smoking.
I welcome and support European Community document 4225/89 and the draft recommendation on banning smoking in public places. We are all very much aware of the increasing amount of evidence which points to the dangers to health from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke or passive smoking. The fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health estimates that several hundred of the 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom result from passive smoking. There is a 10 to 30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer in people who have never smoked but have been exposed to tobacco smoke for most of their lives.
We hear much evidence about the likely increase of respiratory-type diseases in children of parents who smoke, and the effects of that may come late in life. Most of this evidence is of the effects of smoking in the home, but there is also extensive information about the irritant and adverse effects of smoking in public places, such as restaurants, pubs, public transport and the workplace.
In Stockholm in Sweden, compensation has been awarded for occupational injury to a woman diagnosed as having small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the lung, which is a form of cancer. It is said that it resulted from sharing a poorly ventilated office with several habitual smokers.
The view that someone else smoking can be a serious health risk was given greater emphasis in the United States in 1986, when the bulk of the 18th report of the Surgeon General gave details about the risk of tobacco smoke to non-smokers. It said:
To fail to act now on the evidence we currently have would be to fail in our responsibility to protect the public health.

Many states in the United States acted, and more than 40 of them have laws that refer to smoking in the workplace and other public places. Some have total bans in certain areas, and others are restrictive, with designated areas for the smoker.
Those in the House who do not participate in the practice of inhaling the offending substance already know the unpleasant aspects associated with the habit—the smell, the discoloration, the stinging and watering of the eyes, the sore and dry throats. Those are just a few of the things to which non-smokers are exposed when gathering with others in an enclosed environment. People who suffer from various allergic conditions or from chest complaints are often in some difficulty when trying to go about their usual business or when attending a social or leisure function.
As I said, in the United States some states have laws that ban, restrict or regulate smoking in the workplace and other public places—laws in which the rights of the non-smokers prevail over those of smokers. In British law, the odds appear to be stacked in favour of the smoker, and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does not appear to apply to tobacco pollution—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise.
Although there has been an increase in public awareness of the dangers of smoking in crowded public places and of the risks to health from active and passive smoking, the Government's claim that their policy of achieving progress through voluntary means is a success story is possibly stretching the truth a little.
The message has clearly not got through to everyone. Some will always flout the rules and regulations—such as the group on the train on which I travelled to Glasgow last week. Seven over-21s sat in a non-smoking compartment and began smoking. An elderly couple in the compartment, one of whom obviously suffered from a chest complaint, began to cough and to be in a bad way. We asked the youths to stop smoking, but they refused. The guard also tried to get them to stop, but they still did not. In the end, the train was held up at Crewe station for half an hour. Two policemen came on board and the seven were removed from the train. They were allowed back on, after giving a promise not to do it again, and they got into another compartment. That was one instance where legislation was policed, but that does not always happen.
There are still many public areas and workplaces for which no restrictions or bans on smoking have been introduced. The unpleasantness, the risk to health and the danger from fire are allowed to continue. Many organisations which introduce their own regulations have difficulty in enforcing and policing them. Perhaps on British Rail we shall have policing. Others will not introduce restrictions until they have the law on their side.
I am aware that there is a civil liberty aspect to this matter, but the draft recommendation that we are discussing covers that. It does not recommend that a total ban should be introduced. It makes it clear that there should be provision to permit smoking in parts of public places, and it says:
clearly defined areas must be reserved for smokers.
If the Government wished to introduce stronger measures to improve the environment for non-smokers, opinion polls would be behind them. A recent NOP survey for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys commissioned by the Department of Health and quoted at an Action on Smoking and Health briefing on 5 May 1989


found that 70 per cent. of the public agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work. That included 54 per cent. of smokers. About 80 per cent. of the public agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking in restaurants, and 67 per cent. of those were smokers.
In view of the evidence that is available on the damage caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and to pollution of the air, and with the Government's new-found interest in green issues, I find their reluctance to take stronger action in this matter surprising. I am left wondering whether it has anything to do with the tobacco lobby. I hope not.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be ironic if we in this place, representing some 600 people, were to enforce on 55 million or more people something which we are not prepared to do on a voluntary basis in our own workplace?

Mr. Fearn: The motion does not force people to do that. In my view, we are all Europeans. For that reason I could not appreciate the need for the debate which took place earlier.
I agree that education, information and health promotion are all important areas that we should not ignore in our attempts to reduce the effects of passive smoking by making people more aware of the harm that it can do. But the time has come for more positive and direct action. For that reason I hope that the Government are not successful in their attempts to have the recommendation—and it is a recommendation—changed to a resolution. It is clear that the Government would take little action under such a resolution.
I am concerned about the wording of the final part of the motion. I shall support the motion on the understanding that the phrase
which would recognise Member states' doubts about Community competence in this area
refers specifically to smoking in public places. I am concerned about the wider implications that that phrase might have for the Community's competence in public health matters in general. I do not share the Government's view that the Community lacks competence in the public health policy of member states. There are issues such as food standards and pollution control that have a significant effect on public health for which the Community has responsibility and which is within its competence. I hope that the Minister will explain that point fully.

Mr. Roger Sims: I welcome the opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, an important issue. I welcome much of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in introducing the debate. He reminded us that smoking is the largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United Kingdom and quoted some chilling statistics. He sought to assure us that the Government take these matters extremely seriously. I do not doubt for one minute my hon. Friend's personal commitment, but having a debate of this sort after midnight on a quiet Monday is not an especially convincing demonstration of the importance that the Government attach to the issue.
There appear to be two strands to the argument. One strand is that as smoking is an avoidable cause of death

and disease, there is an obligation on the Government to do everything that they can to persuade people, especially the young, not to take up the habit, and to persuade those who already smoke to smoke less or to stop. It is clear that reducing the number of opportunities to smoke has exactly that effect. Secondly, the non-smoker finds sometimes that he must breathe other people's smoke, which is extremely disagreeable. We know now without doubt that it is positively harmful. Therefore, there is an obligation to ensure that as far as possible we do not have to inhale other people's smoke if we do not want to do so. Restrictions on smoking in public places will achieve both the ends to which I have referred. They will dissuade the smoker and protect the non-smoker. That is exactly what is sought by the recommendation before us.
The United Kingdom is not obliged to implement the recommendation, and if it is reduced to a resolution it will carry even less weight. I understand that the Government are not prepared to legislate merely because the EEC requests them to do so, and question whether it has the competence to make the recommendation. I am bound to say that I regret the Government's unwillingness.
It is self-evident that public attitudes have changed a great deal. Only about one third of the adult population now smokes. There are more and more places where non-smoking is requested and more places where there are non-smoking areas. Legislation requiring non-smoking in public places, and especially in work places, would give impetus to the movement and be generally welcomed. The ban on smoking in tube trains and within the Underground system generally has demonstrated the extent to which the public will accept such measures. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government would have no hesitation in introducing legislation if that would be necessary for safety and hygiene. Surely health should be included in the hygiene.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearne) quoted from a National Opinion Poll survey. I need not repeat the figures which he presented to us. The survey was commissioned by the Department of Health. The results of the survey tell us that 70 per cent. of those who were questioned agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work and that only 18 per cent. of offices have a smoking policy. The figures suggest that there is substantial public support for the rights of non-smokers, who are the majority.
A century ago, smoking was carried on by those who dressed for the occasion. They wore smoking jackets. They normally retired, even in this very building, to the smoking room. I do not see why nowadays the majority of us should have to seek out non-smoking carriages and non-smoking areas. I welcome that part of the document which we are considering that gives the rights of non-smokers priority everywhere except in specifically designated smoking areas.
I regret that the directive does not go far enough, but if only because of its recognition of non-smoking as the acceptable norm I welcome it as being at least a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend's Department promotes policies of preventive medicine, including support for the Health Education Authority and Action on Smoking and Health—though that support is somewhat modest compared with the sums spent by the tobacco industry on promoting its poisonous products.
I urge my hon. Friend to tackle, with all the vigour and diplomacy that he has already demonstrated in office, not


only the problem of smoking in public places but advertising, promotion and sponsorship—particularly that aimed at the young. If he does so, he will have my wholehearted support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the all-party parliamentary ASH group.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I get the impression that we have the no-smoking lobby here with us tonight. That is what is going on.

Mr. Greg Knight: What about the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)?

Mr. Haynes: I am not talking only about right hon. and hon. Members on one side of the House. I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman jumps to conclusions. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may laugh, but we are debating a serious matter. We are talking about jobs, for a start. That is one important aspect. I come from Nottingham, where many people work in the tobacco industry. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Our problem is that lot across the Channel. It is not a question of "You should smoke" or "You shouldn't smoke." The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was talking about smoking in certain areas and wearing a smoking jacket. I can see that what will happen next is that the Smoking Room down the corridor will be closed. What has happened to the freedom of the individual? Very often I pop into the Smoking Room to see who is there, and the right hon. and hon. Members in there all have their cigars and cigarettes going. Does the hon. Member for Chislehurst want to deny them that pleasure? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am convinced that that will be the next move.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has left the Chamber, but I agree with his comment earlier about directives from Europe telling us what we should and should not do. I remember a debate early one morning on a Community directive that we should allow 40 tonne lorries on our roads. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, the next step will be a non-smoking directive. Who will be squealing then? I hope that we all will. I have had a bellyful of the people on the other side of the Channel telling us what we should do.
As to polluting the atmosphere in the House of Commons, what about pollution of the atmosphere outside this place? What about nuclear pollution in Cleveland and Cumbria? We are not doing a great deal about that. I squealed in Committee on the Atomic Energy Bill about what action that we should be taking on nuclear pollution. Youngsters are developing leukaemia, and we know how that is being caused.
I return to the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just leading up to all the European directives that we are asked to approve—in the same way, I believe, that we shall be asked to approve one on smoking in public places.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not like intervention from across the Channel in the form of actions by the European Commission. Does he not find it a little disquieting that his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) seems happy to accept the Commission's proposals so meekly in this instance?

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me down that road. I am not going to fall out with my hon. Friend. She is a lovely lass, and so are you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Riddick: What is the answer to my question?

Mr. Haynes: I am talking about the freedom of the individual. My hon. Friend is entitled to her opinion, like the hon. Members for Derbyshire, South and for Chislehurst, but I have had a bellyful of being told what to do from across the Channel.

Mr. Day: She is telling you.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is entitled to her opinion, and I am not going to fall out with her. I have said the same about the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, but I disagree with her. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have even got support on the Conservative Benches.
I think that you have heard enough from me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made my point. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was it?"] There are some sarcastic Conservatives in the Chamber tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, is always here—like me—until the end of the day, even if it is 4·30 am. But many hon. Members are not here when we are dealing with European matters such as this. Thai is what I say—that I have had a bellyful. Many hon. Members have not experienced what we have experienced in the early hours of the morning. These debates come on far too late, and we are not given proper time to discuss the matters involved.
I am trying to deliver a message: let us get together and say that enough is enough. As I have said before—let me now say it yet again—I have had a bellyful. I am a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is not here, because we usually stand together on such matters, almost arm in arm. We entirely disagree with what is happening. The hon. Member for Northampton, North who has probably gone to bed, disagrees as well. We shall continue to disagree until they shut up over there and let us get on with our job here, and determine the destiny of the people of the United Kingdom. They are the people whom we represent here; that lot over there can look after themselves.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), perhaps I may walk arm in arm with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I entirely endorse what he has said. The House is always delighted when the hon. Gentleman is championing a cause, not least when it is the cause of individual liberty. I am not quite sure how he manages to reconcile it with his amazingly competent role as an Opposition Whip: he is a most fearsome character in that role, but a most delightful one when speaking on individual rights.
I do not wish to detain my colleagues, so I shall he brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) —like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)—has advanced very good arguments about the dangers of smoking, while others have argued that it is a perfectly legitimate occupation. I believe, however, that the debate is not actually about the


merits or demerits of smoking: I think that it is about the competence of the European Economic Community to regulate our lives.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) speak for a large vein of opinion in the United Kingdom. The more that the EEC continues to poke its nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the Economic Community and are increasingly to do with social matters which do not require unity across the Channel, the more it will alienate the British people and put at risk some of the great advantages to be had from EEC membership.
This is a question of competence. The unwarranted interference of Brussels bureaucrats is far more dangerous than any smoke that is likely to be exhaled by the citizens of our country when smoking cigarettes or pipes. It is vital that the Brussels bureaucrats should be kept in check. They should be told to keep their noses out of our business and to allow this Parliament to determine these matters.
I agree that it is regrettable that European legislation is debated late at night, with the result that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution feels that he must keep his remarks short. The Government were right to refuse to be drawn down the path advocated by the Liberals. It is astonishing how many times the Liberals come to this Chamber to tell the people of Britain what they wish to force upon them. They are a bunch of nannies. They are as bad as any Eurocrat in wanting to interfere in the affairs of the people of Britain. They are jolly good candidates for jobs in Brussels. They are far more in sympathy with what is going on there than they are with the mood of the British people. Last Thursday's election results prove that point. Many of them will soon have to look for jobs in Brussels, because they will no longer be here.
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided not to introduce compulsion but to replace
the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area.
I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear to those with whom it is his responsibility to negotiate in Brussels that he speaks with the full authority of this Parliament and nation, that we shall not brook interference in our affairs and that he is speaking not simply for himself but for the British people.

Mr. Freeman: This has been a brief, illuminating and somewhat humorous debate. Nevertheless, several serious points have been made, and I shall seek to answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) —to whose work for Action on Smoking and Health, which is much appreciated by many of his colleagues and friends on both sides of the House, I pay tribute—spoke about the serious effect of smoking and the damage that it can do to one's health. I endorse entirely what he said. Sitting next to him is my predecessor in office, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who in last November's debate also underlined the serious effects of cigarette smoking on health. I endorse entirely what she said in the debate, and I have just re-read it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst asked for an assurance that when we renegotiate the voluntary agreements we shall vigorously pursue them. I give him that assurance.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to the importance of no-smoking areas. I agree with him. That is enshrined in the draft recommendation and also in my statement to the House earlier today. He asked me whether the Government believe that the Commission has competence to introduce proposals concerning public health. The answer is no, we do not believe that it has. I hope that I have made that quite clear to the House.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, asked why our policy of voluntary control could not be replaced by United Kingdom legislation. I hope that I have made it quite clear that the Government do not believe that that is appropriate. It is important to continue with voluntary control. We have had substantial success with voluntary control, and we want more success of that kind. The Opposition believe that legislation is required, but the Government do not share their view.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Haynes) believe that this is a stalking horse for EC control of public health. It is not. The draft recommendation is non-binding. It does not involve the British Government in taking legislative action. The measure is modest, and while the Commission is right to be concerned about smoking in public places, we disagree that it has the competence to pronounce on public health policy. Nevertheless, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4225/89 and Corrigendum on banning smoking in public places; recognises that if agreed it would allow the Government to continue its current successful policy of achieving progress in this area largely through voluntary rather than legislative means; and endorses the Government's objective of replacing the draft Recommendation with a mixed Resolution or Recommendation, which would recognise Member States' doubts about Community competence in this area.

Brewing Industry (MMC Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Graham Riddick: The proposal in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply of beer in this country would, if implemented, lead to enormous and fundamental upheaval in the industry.
The report, and the issues surrounding it, need to be debated in Parliament, and perhaps I should explain my purpose in initiating the debate. I have no vested interest in the matter. However, I know something about the industry—which some hon. Members may regard as a disadvantage—because for a number of years before becoming an hon. Member I was a sales manager with a soft drinks company selling to the licensed trade.
I speak as someone who believes strongly in the free market. Any Government action to implement the proposals in the report would amount to an unwarranted —indeed, counterproductive—intervention in the workings of the free market. The brewing industry is a classic example of the free market, having sorted a fairly complex industry into an orderly and consumer-oriented market.
I also speak as someone who believes in the sanctity of private property. I am horrified that one of the main planks of the report would force companies to divest themselves of assets that they have legally and enterprisingly built up over many decades. For a Conservative Government to undermine those two fundamental principles, there has to be clear and overwhelming evidence that competition does not exist and that the consumer is getting a raw deal.
Yet there is almost no evidence in the report that there is massive consumer dissatisfaction with the current set-up. The report tells us that 80 per cent. of beer consumed in this country is consumed away from home on licensed premises. In America, only 20 per cent. of beer is consumed away from the home, in West Germany the figure is 40 per cent. and in Belgium and France, the figure is 43 per cent. Those figures do not suggest mass dissatisfication in the United Kingdom with pubs and clubs.
One of the key factors on which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission based its conclusion that a so-called "complex monopoly" was operating against the interest of the consumer was that the price of beer had increased by 15 per cent. above the retail prices index since 1979. But the report records the results of a survey carried out by the Consumers Association, which showed that only 1 per cent. of consumers mentioned price as the reason for choosing a particular pub. That is not surprising, because beer prices in this country are among the cheapest in the industrialised world. The consumer is looking for the right mix of amenity, choice of product and comfort. If price is as important as the report suggests, why is it that clubs, which generally offer lower prices as well as a lower level of amenity, have declined in recent years?
The real competition exists between pubs. The commission reports that the licensee survey showed that 90 per cent. of pubs had competition within a five-minute walk and that 34 per cent. of licensees faced competition from at least 10 pubs within a similar distance. The report records also that pubs in this country have a much greater advantage in the number of brands of beer per outlet than

those in other countries, which is not altogether surprising when one considers that there are more than 1,000 different brands of beer sold in the United Kingdom. Surveys have shown that the British consumer is satisfied with the choice available in pubs—so much for the commission's claim that there is insufficient choice in the British pub.
The report has not even attempted to prove that there is massive consumer dissatisfaction with the current set-up. That is not surprising. I contend that there is no such massive dissatisfaction. I carried out my own survey in the village of Honley in my constituency last Friday by visiting several pubs and clubs. Honley, with an adult population of 5,500, has an interesting mix of pubs arid clubs. I found a significant difference in prices being charged and in the level of amenity being offered. One pub was popular because of its taproom, another was known as a beer house and yet another was known as one frequented by young people. It was interesting to note that the pub charging the highest prices also seemed to be the pub attracting the most customers. I talked to some of the punters enjoying a pint in the various pubs. From my own straw poll, I can report that there was practically no dissatisfaction with the choice available. The only grumble I heard concerned the price of low alcohol beer I was surprised by the high level of awareness of the report. I have to inform my hon. Friend of the enormous concern that it has generated already, especially among tenants and free landlords.
I find it disturbing that the report seems determined to underplay the significance of the massive amounts of money, amounting to about £3 billion, that have been invested in the refurbishment of existing pubs by the brewery companies between 1982 and 1988. The commission makes much play, for example, of the large price increase between July 1985 and July 1986, but fails to mention that that price increase coincided with an especially heavy amount of investment of £1·2 billion in the years 1985 and 1986 alone. It is almost as though the fact of that investment did not fit in with the conclusion that the MMC wished to reach.
One aspect of the report that I find particularly unsavoury is the fact that the MMC highlights the regional variations in the price of beer. I should have thought that lower beer prices in the north could be easily explained by lower property costs as well as lower service costs, not to mention the fact that consumption of beer is far higher in the north than in the south and that that increased volume justifies a lower price. Regional variations are not uncommon where a significant level of services is involved, and I understand that beer price differentials are lower than those in prices for car servicing, cinema admissions and restaurant prices. If the Government act to reduce the regional variations in price—I have no doubt that that would mean an increase in the price of beer in the north —the move will be clearly seen as an attack on the north, and with justification.
I now come to some of the recommendations in the report. The most stunning omission from the report is its failure to examine exactly what effect the proposals will have on the industry. As the dissenting member of the investigating group, Mr. Mills, said:
the recommendations, if implemented, would be an unnecessary leap in the dark.
The combination of imposing a ceiling of 2,000 pubs on each brewery, insisting on a guest beer being allowed into


each tenancy and stopping tied loans being made to the free trade will, in my view, lead to many marginal pubs in rural and inner-city areas being closed, many free outlets finding it impossible to get off the ground and an increasing trend towards a few national, heavily promoted megabrands dominating the market.
The report is already creating ripples. Decorative Glass Structures Ltd., a firm in my constituency which manufactures stained glass for pubs, has written to tell me that the effect on its order book has already been significant. The reason for that is simple. Major brewery chains have now frozen all their projects on tenanted premises. We know, too, that three regional breweries have already given notice to all their tenants.
I find it somewhat worrying that the MMC should so signally have failed to calculate just how the brewers would respond to the proposal to limit their tied estate to no more than 2,000 pubs. The MMC rather naively believed that the brewers would meekly sell off a number of pubs to bring their estate down to 2,000, although it does not take a genius to realise that even if they did that, while many pubs would be bought, those on the margin in rural and inner-city areas would almost certainly be closed.
It is now becoming clear that the national brewers would choose to be retailers and simply sell their brewing interests. That would almost certainly lead to a concentration of brewing in the hands of fewer companies and it would also provide the opportunity for foreign brewing interests to buy into the United Kingdom brewing industry. At the moment, the national brewers are happy to keep the marginal pubs open because they contribute extra volume, but once the interests have been split up the retailing companies would see no benefit whatever in keeping such pubs open, so in those circumstances, too, the marginal pubs are likely to disappear.
I am concerned that, despite all the MMC's fine words about its wish to help the small regional brewers, great stress is laid on the fact that there are still opportunities to reduce costs through the economies of scale. By implication the MMC therefore expects there to be fewer but larger breweries in the future. It is worth pointing out that the report records, albeit in passing, that, in 1986, the number of off-licence premises owned by breweries amounted to about 57 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, compared with 78 per cent. in 1967.
The proposal that guest beer should be introduced in every tenancy is well meaning, but it will become counter-productive. It is intended by the MMC to help small regional breweries, but I fear that it is likely to result in big national breweries spending more and more money promoting one or two megabrands that it will be almost impossible for a tenant to refuse to take, not because the brewery is twisting his arm but because of the X millions of pounds being spent on television advertising, thereby giving certain brands an extremely high profile.
Of course, smaller breweries will be able to sell their beers to some of the national tenancies, but hon. Members should make no mistake: when it comes to a battle between the local and big national brands, there will be only one winner, as experience in other countries has

shown. I have heard that a regional brewery in the south of England believes that that provision is likely to see its sales of beer decline by about 30 per cent.
Another effect of the proposal being implemented will be the number of tenanted houses that will be turned into managed houses, which I would regret. A tenant tends to be more entrepreneurial than a manager and contributes his own special character to the pub environment.
The proposal that tied loans to the free trade should be eliminated would be disastrous for many small clubs and would make it increasingly difficult for an entrepreneur to start a new club or pub, particularly if the venture were unique or unusual. Even the Campaign for Real Ale recognised in its evidence to the MMC that loans were often necessary for a new free house to be viable. The MMC admitted that there was a great deal of competition between brewers in relation to loans made to the free trade, and, from my experience, I can confirm that free trade outlets frequently change suppliers to get a better deal from an alternative brewer.
I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. John Moxon, who is involved with the Marsden football club in my constituency. His letter states:
Six years ago, without any track record, Greenalls brewery had sufficient faith in us to advance a substantial loan to enable us to start up and erect a tastefully furnished clubhouse with full facilities which was then expanded in a similar fashion three years later by further brewery investment. We now enjoy a proud position in the community with great accent on junior football and a family atmosphere second to none in social activities.
He believes that the opportunities to develop clubs in that way will be lost if brewers are no longer allowed to lend money.
Thousands of similar clubs up and down the country would never have got off the ground without the help of breweries and would have found it almost impossible to get a loan from banks, because of the high commercial risk involved and also because, in many cases, there is no collateral for a sports club to offer in return for a loan.
Concern about the issue is not confined to Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) went out of his way to find me and ask me to mention his concern. He is worried about the abolition of loans to rural pubs in Scotland, not to mention employment prospects being threatened in the Tennants brewery in Glasgow.
What is staggering about the report is that it has simply not considered what effects its key proposals will have on the industry; nor has it made any serious comparisons between the United Kingdom brewing industry and brewing industries in other countries. If it had done so, it would have recognised how disastrous its proposals would be. For a start, it would have learnt that the United Kingdom, with over 1,000 beer brands, has infinitely more choice and variety than any other country in the industrialised world and that that is a direct result of the mix of tied and free outlets.
The tie in Australia was abolished 10 years ago, with the direct result that beer prices have increased by 40 per cent. above the retail prices index; two breweries now dominate the market with over 90 per cent. of the market share between them, and the consumption of beer in the home has risen markedly. The fact is that those countries where the brewing industry has no tied outlets are dominated by a few massive companies.
The direct result of the proposals, if implemented, would be the formation of a few large brewing companies, which would then spend massive amounts of money on promoting a few national megabrands. Those promotional activities would in turn ensure that the market share of those national megabrands would increase year after year, so that we would eventually reach the situation that exists in so many other countries. Is that really what the MMC intended?
If my hon. Friend the Minister were to report that the MMC does not intend a free-for-all and that the tie will be continued, albeit in limited form, I would draw his attention to the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are far fewer tied outlets than in England and Wales and where two breweries dominate the market with over 80 per cent. of the market share.
What I find somewhat ironic is that one of the few companies that is quoted in the report as arguing strongly in favour of the changes suggested, because the tied system is working against it, is Bulmer H. P. Holdings plc, yet without the tied system the brewers would have been wholly unable to break the near-monopoly stranglehold that Bulmer itself had in the 1960s and 1970s, and which it has now lost, to the benefit, I suggest, of all.
I turn briefly to one or two aspects of the report to which I am more favourably inclined. The MMC is keen to see the conditions of tenants improved and that is an area which needs some work. The brewers need to make some concessions in that area. I know that the National Licensed Victuallers Association representing tenants and free landlords is keen to see greater security of tenure and I believe that in the wake of this report it would be appropriate if the Brewers Society sat down with representatives of the tenants to see whether an agreement can be hammered out in relation to some of these issues.
There are one or two lesser aspects of the report with which I agree, but, as one or two of my hon. Friends are pointing to their watches, I shall summarise them briefly. I believe that the MMC report into the supply of beer is fundamentally flawed. It is based on a number of false premises and seems to have been compiled by theoreticians who were determined to arrive at a preconceived set of conclusions regardless of the realities of the industry. If the report's recommendations were implemented, a number of pubs would disappear, the nature of many clubs and pubs would change dramatically and the variety of outlets would be reduced significantly.
The brewing industry in this country provides beer at competitive prices in attractive surroundings which are heavily patronised by consumers up and down the land. It would be ironic indeed if it were a Conservative Government, and this Conservative Government of all Conservative Governments, who meddled in the brewing industry like a good old-fashioned interventionist Socialist Government. We would not be forgiven if we did so meddle and changed the face of the British pub. My advice to my hon. Friend the Minister is very simple and very practical—leave well alone.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick ) for raising this subject. It has been useful to air some of the issues.
It is important to remind the House of the background to this whole issue. The subject of the supply of beer was referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1986. The MMC took two and a half years over its deliberations and investigations and reported to us in February this year. The report is a substantial document which, with appendices, runs to just over 500 pages. The MMC came to a clear conclusion that there was a complex monopoly that restricted competition at all levels.
The MMC set out in considerable detail the detriments to the public interest, which it saw as arising from the lack of effective competition in the supply of beer. It is worth repeating those detriments. It found that consumer choice was restricted, both because one brewer did not allow another brewer's beer to be sold in outlets which the first brewer owned and—perhaps especially important—because of the brewers' efforts to ensure that their brands of cider and soft drinks were sold in their outlets.
The MMC found that the tenant's bargaining position was so much weaker than his landlord's that he was unable fully to meet consumer preferences. In addition, independent manufacturers and wholesalers in beer and other drinks were allowed only limited access to the market. The MMC found that the results were that the price of beer in public houses had been rising much faster than inflation in the past few years; the price of larger was higher than justified by the cost of producing it, and that the variation in wholesale prices between regions was excessive.
The MMC concluded that those were serious public interest detriments. It must surely be clear that the Government cannot simply ignore those findings. Our consistent policy has been to give power to the consumer, and the best way of doing that is to ensure that competitive markets work properly.
In the past couple of weeks we have seen quite an extraordinary campaign conducted through advertising in the national press. That was a campaign that was eventually identified as emanating from the Brewers Society. However, that campaign has not sought to argue through the issues in any thorough sense at all. It has instead been based on assertions and emotive appeals, many of which do not stand up to scrutiny. At least, my hon. Friend has actually put and developed arguments and has not simply relied on bald assertions.
I shall try to deal with some of the points that have arisen. An attempt has been made to create the impression that the entire industry is united in its opposition to the MMC's recommendations, but that is certainly not the case. For example, Friday's trade press quoted one regional brewer as saying:
The report contains more positives than negatives, and if the big six got their heads out of the sand they'd see that.
The Small Independent Brewers Association came to see me last week to tell me personally of its support for the recommendations. It welcomed the opportunity to compete on more equal terms with the bigger breweries. CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—has told us that it, too, is strongly in favour of the report's recommendations. In addition, the National Licensed Victuallers Association supports the arguments set out in the report for stronger tenants' rights. Well they might do so, because in the past few weeks tenants of a number of major breweries have found themselves served with notice to


quit. That is not just hearsay. My Department has received a number of letters from tenants who are seriously concerned about their position.
It is worth recalling that nearly 100 pages out of the 300 that form the body of the report are given over to consideration of the views of the Brewers Society and of individual views. Therefore, brewers' views have been carefully considered.
In its report, the MMC paid tribute to the rigour and thoroughness of the Brewers Society in responding to the MMC's questions and to the society's effectiveness in championing its members' interests. Since the report was published, we have seen in the advertising campaign independent evidence of its willingness to champion vigorously its members' interests. It is sad that the quality of that campaign has not matched the seriousness of the issues which are addressed in the MMC's report.
I understand that it is an expensive campaign, which is costing about £200,000 a day. It would have been cheaper for the Brewers Society if, instead of spending all that money—all of which is paid for by beer drinkers—it had spent a more modest sum in coming to my Department in Victoria street to talk to us about its views. I am pleased to report that today, some seven weeks after the report was published, the Brewers Society, in response to our specific request, has written to us with its views and has accepted that it would be better to meet and to discuss the matter face to face.
We are not wedded to every word of every recommendation that the MMC has made. There may well be consequences of some recommendations that were not previously foreseen. There are many recommendations of different sorts affecting different interests in the industry in different ways. It is unusual to find many people who have expressed views who condemn every aspect of the recommendations, and it is important to recognise that.
Clearly, there is a great deal of scope for discussion and we look forward to taking part in those discussions. I am aware that uncertainty is damaging to the industry and that many employees, tenants and others have been alarmed by some of the assertions made during lobbying. I hope that we can resolve those uncertainties as soon as possible. We want to make decisions before long so that these matters can be resolved, but naturally we have to ensure that those decisions are properly considered. We are keen to hear from anyone who has constructive proposals for better remedies than those which are identified by the MMC. I reiterate what my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State said last week:
If the brewers don't like the MMC proposals let them come to us with alternative proposals which address the serious public interest issues raised".
I am glad that the Brewers Society is now to do that and I look forward to discussions with it, but let no one be under any misapprehension: in the face of the serious public interest findings, for the Government to do nothing is simply not an option.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.